{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_505/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_505","id":"gutenberg_505","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/505","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Religious","Religion and science -- History"],"text":"Produced by An Anonymous Volunteer\n\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM\n\nBy Andrew Dickson White\n\n\nTwo Volumes Combined\n\n\nTo the Memory of\n\nEZRA CORNELL\n\nI DEDICATE THIS BOOK.\n\n\n\nThoughts that great hearts once broke for, we\n\nBreathe cheaply in the common air.--LOWELL\n\n\nDicipulus est prioris posterior dies.--PUBLIUS SYRUS\n\n\nTruth is the daughter of Time.--BACON\n\n\nThe Truth shall make you free.--ST. JOHN, viii, 32.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nMy book is ready for the printer, and as I begin this preface my eye\nlights upon the crowd of Russian peasants at work on the Neva under my\nwindows. With pick and shovel they are letting the rays of the April sun\ninto the great ice barrier which binds together the modern quays and the\nold granite fortress where lie the bones of the Romanoff Czars.\n\nThis barrier is already weakened; it is widely decayed, in many places\nthin, and everywhere treacherous; but it is, as a whole, so broad, so\ncrystallized about old boulders, so imbedded in shallows, so wedged into\ncrannies on either shore, that it is a great danger. The waters from\nthousands of swollen streamlets above are pressing behind it; wreckage\nand refuse are piling up against it; every one knows that it must yield.\nBut there is danger that it may resist the pressure too long and break\nsuddenly, wrenching even the granite quays from their foundations,\nbringing desolation to a vast population, and leaving, after the\nsubsidence of the flood, a widespread residue of slime, a fertile\nbreeding-bed for the germs of disease.\n\n\nBut the patient mujiks are doing the right thing. The barrier, exposed\nmore and more to the warmth of spring by the scores of channels they are\nmaking, will break away gradually, and the river will flow on beneficent\nand beautiful.\n\nMy work in this book is like that of the Russian mujik on the Neva. I\nsimply try to aid in letting the light of historical truth into that\ndecaying mass of outworn thought which attaches the modern world to\nmediaeval conceptions of Christianity, and which still lingers among\nus--a most serious barrier to religion and morals, and a menace to the\nwhole normal evolution of society.\n\nFor behind this barrier also the flood is rapidly rising--the flood\nof increased knowledge and new thought; and this barrier also, though\nhoneycombed and in many places thin, creates a danger--danger of a\nsudden breaking away, distressing and calamitous, sweeping before it not\nonly out worn creeds and noxious dogmas, but cherished principles\nand ideals, and even wrenching out most precious religious and moral\nfoundations of the whole social and political fabric.\n\nMy hope is to aid--even if it be but a little--in the gradual and\nhealthful dissolving away of this mass of unreason, that the stream of\n\"religion pure and undefiled\" may flow on broad and clear, a blessing to\nhumanity.\n\nAnd now a few words regarding the evolution of this book.\n\nIt is something over a quarter of a century since I labored with Ezra\nCornell in founding the university which bears his honored name.\n\nOur purpose was to establish in the State of New York an institution for\nadvanced instruction and research, in which science, pure and applied,\nshould have an equal place with literature; in which the study of\nliterature, ancient and modern, should be emancipated as much as\npossible from pedantry; and which should be free from various useless\ntrammels and vicious methods which at that period hampered many, if not\nmost, of the American universities and colleges.\n\nWe had especially determined that the institution should be under the\ncontrol of no political party and of no single religious sect, and with\nMr. Cornell's approval I embodied stringent provisions to this effect in\nthe charter.\n\nIt had certainly never entered into the mind of either of us that in all\nthis we were doing anything irreligious or unchristian. Mr. Cornell\nwas reared a member of the Society of Friends; he had from his fortune\nliberally aided every form of Christian effort which he found going on\nabout him, and among the permanent trustees of the public library\nwhich he had already founded, he had named all the clergymen of\nthe town--Catholic and Protestant. As for myself, I had been bred a\nchurchman, had recently been elected a trustee of one church college,\nand a professor in another; those nearest and dearest to me were\ndevoutly religious; and, if I may be allowed to speak of a matter so\npersonal to my self, my most cherished friendships were among deeply\nreligious men and women, and my greatest sources of enjoyment were\necclesiastical architecture, religious music, and the more devout forms\nof poetry. So, far from wishing to injure Christianity, we both hoped to\npromote it; but we did not confound religion with sectarianism, and we\nsaw in the sectarian character of American colleges and universities as\na whole, a reason for the poverty of the advanced instruction then given\nin so many of them.\n\nIt required no great acuteness to see that a system of control which, in\nselecting a Professor of Mathematics or Language or Rhetoric or Physics\nor Chemistry, asked first and above all to what sect or even to what\nwing or branch of a sect he belonged, could hardly do much to advance\nthe moral, religious, or intellectual development of mankind.\n\nThe reasons for the new foundation seemed to us, then, so cogent that\nwe expected the co-operation of all good citizens, and anticipated no\nopposition from any source.\n\nAs I look back across the intervening years, I know not whether to be\nmore astonished or amused at our simplicity.\n\nOpposition began at once. In the State Legislature it confronted us at\nevery turn, and it was soon in full blaze throughout the State--from the\ngood Protestant bishop who proclaimed that all professors should be in\nholy orders, since to the Church alone was given the command, \"Go, teach\nall nations,\" to the zealous priest who published a charge that Goldwin\nSmith--a profoundly Christian scholar--had come to Cornell in order\nto inculcate the \"infidelity of the Westminster Review\"; and from the\neminent divine who went from city to city, denouncing the \"atheistic\nand pantheistic tendencies\" of the proposed education, to the perfervid\nminister who informed a denominational synod that Agassiz, the last\ngreat opponent of Darwin, and a devout theist, was \"preaching Darwinism\nand atheism\" in the new institution.\n\nAs the struggle deepened, as hostile resolutions were introduced into\nvarious ecclesiastical bodies, as honored clergymen solemnly warned\ntheir flocks first against the \"atheism,\" then against the \"infidelity,\"\nand finally against the \"indifferentism\" of the university, as devoted\npastors endeavoured to dissuade young men from matriculation, I took the\ndefensive, and, in answer to various attacks from pulpits and religious\nnewspapers, attempted to allay the fears of the public. \"Sweet\nreasonableness\" was fully tried. There was established and endowed in\nthe university perhaps the most effective Christian pulpit, and one of\nthe most vigorous branches of the Christian Association, then in the\nUnited States; but all this did nothing to ward off the attack.\nThe clause in the charter of the university forbidding it to give\npredominance to the doctrines of any sect, and above all the fact that\nmuch prominence was given to instruction in various branches of science,\nseemed to prevent all compromise, and it soon became clear that to stand\non the defensive only made matters worse. Then it was that there was\nborne in upon me a sense of the real difficulty--the antagonism between\nthe theological and scientific view of the universe and of education in\nrelation to it; therefore it was that, having been invited to deliver a\nlecture in the great hall of the Cooper Institute at New York, I took\nas my subject The Battlefields of Science, maintaining this thesis which\nfollows:\n\nIn all modern history, interference with science in the supposed\ninterest of religion, no matter how conscientious such interference\nmay have been, has resulted in the direst evils both to religion\nand science, and invariably; and, on the other hand, all untrammeled\nscientific investigation, no matter how dangerous to religion some of\nits stages may have seemed for the time to be, has invariably resulted\nin the highest good both of religion and science.\n\nThe lecture was next day published in the New York Tribune at the\nrequest of Horace Greeley, its editor, who was also one of the Cornell\nUniversity trustees. As a result of this widespread publication and\nof sundry attacks which it elicited, I was asked to maintain my thesis\nbefore various university associations and literary clubs; and I shall\nalways remember with gratitude that among those who stood by me and\npresented me on the lecture platform with words of approval and cheer\nwas my revered instructor, the Rev. Dr. Theodore Dwight Woolsey, at that\ntime President of Yale College.\n\nMy lecture grew--first into a couple of magazine articles, and then into\na little book called The Warfare of Science, for which, when republished\nin England, Prof. John Tyndall wrote a preface.\n\nSundry translations of this little book were published, but the\nmost curious thing in its history is the fact that a very friendly\nintroduction to the Swedish translation was written by a Lutheran\nbishop.\n\nMeanwhile Prof. John W. Draper published his book on The Conflict\nbetween Science and Religion, a work of great ability, which, as I then\nthought, ended the matter, so far as my giving it further attention was\nconcerned.\n\nBut two things led me to keep on developing my own work in this field:\nFirst, I had become deeply interested in it, and could not refrain from\ndirecting my observation and study to it; secondly, much as I admired\nDraper's treatment of the questions involved, his point of view and mode\nof looking at history were different from mine.\n\nHe regarded the struggle as one between Science and Religion. I believed\nthen, and am convinced now, that it was a struggle between Science and\nDogmatic Theology.\n\nMore and more I saw that it was the conflict between two epochs in the\nevolution of human thought--the theological and the scientific.\n\nSo I kept on, and from time to time published New Chapters in the\nWarfare of Science as magazine articles in The Popular Science Monthly.\nThis was done under many difficulties. For twenty years, as President of\nCornell University and Professor of History in that institution, I was\nimmersed in the work of its early development. Besides this, I could not\nhold myself entirely aloof from public affairs, and was three times sent\nby the Government of the United States to do public duty abroad: first\nas a commissioner to Santo Domingo, in 1870; afterward as minister to\nGermany, in 1879; finally, as minister to Russia, in 1892; and was\nalso called upon by the State of New York to do considerable labor in\nconnection with international exhibitions at Philadelphia and at Paris.\nI was also obliged from time to time to throw off by travel the effects\nof overwork.\n\nThe variety of residence and occupation arising from these causes may\nperhaps explain some peculiarities in this book which might otherwise\npuzzle my reader.\n\nWhile these journeyings have enabled me to collect materials over a\nvery wide range--in the New World, from Quebec to Santo Domingo and from\nBoston to Mexico, San Francisco, and Seattle, and in the Old World from\nTrondhjem to Cairo and from St. Petersburg to Palermo--they have often\nobliged me to write under circumstances not very favorable: sometimes\non an Atlantic steamer, sometimes on a Nile boat, and not only in my\nown library at Cornell, but in those of Berlin, Helsingfors, Munich,\nFlorence, and the British Museum. This fact will explain to the\nbenevolent reader not only the citation of different editions of the\nsame authority in different chapters, but some iterations which in the\nsteady quiet of my own library would not have been made.\n\nIt has been my constant endeavour to write for the general reader,\navoiding scholastic and technical terms as much as possible and stating\nthe truth simply as it presents itself to me.\n\nThat errors of omission and commission will be found here and there is\nprobable--nay, certain; but the substance of the book will, I believe,\nbe found fully true. I am encouraged in this belief by the fact that, of\nthe three bitter attacks which this work in its earlier form has already\nencountered, one was purely declamatory, objurgatory, and hortatory, and\nthe others based upon ignorance of facts easily pointed out.\n\nAnd here I must express my thanks to those who have aided me. First and\nabove all to my former student and dear friend, Prof. George Lincoln\nBurr, of Cornell University, to whose contributions, suggestions,\ncriticisms, and cautions I am most deeply indebted; also to my friends\nU. G. Weatherly, formerly Travelling Fellow of Cornell, and now\nAssistant Professor in the University of Indiana,--Prof. and Mrs. Earl\nBarnes and Prof. William H. Hudson, of Stanford University,--and Prof.\nE. P Evans, formerly of the University of Michigan, but now of Munich,\nfor extensive aid in researches upon the lines I have indicated to them,\nbut which I could never have prosecuted without their co-operation.\nIn libraries at home and abroad they have all worked for me most\neffectively, and I am deeply grateful to them.\n\nThis book is presented as a sort of Festschrift--a tribute to Cornell\nUniversity as it enters the second quarter-century of its existence, and\nprobably my last tribute.\n\nThe ideas for which so bitter a struggle was made at its foundation\nhave triumphed. Its faculty, numbering over one hundred and, fifty;\nits students, numbering but little short of two thousand; its noble\nbuildings and equipment; the munificent gifts, now amounting to millions\nof dollars, which it has received from public-spirited men and women;\nthe evidences of public confidence on all sides; and, above all,\nthe adoption of its cardinal principles and main features by various\ninstitutions of learning in other States, show this abundantly. But\nthere has been a triumph far greater and wider. Everywhere among the\nleading modern nations the same general tendency is seen. During the\nquarter-century just past the control of public instruction, not only in\nAmerica but in the leading nations of Europe, has passed more and more\nfrom the clergy to the laity. Not only are the presidents of the larger\nuniversities in the United States, with but one or two exceptions,\nlaymen, but the same thing is seen in the old European strongholds of\nmetaphysical theology. At my first visit to Oxford and Cambridge, forty\nyears ago, they were entirely under ecclesiastical control. Now, all\nthis is changed. An eminent member of the present British Government has\nrecently said, \"A candidate for high university position is handicapped\nby holy orders.\" I refer to this with not the slightest feeling of\nhostility toward the clergy, for I have none; among them are many of my\ndearest friends; no one honours their proper work more than I; but the\nabove fact is simply noted as proving the continuance of that evolution\nwhich I have endeavoured to describe in this series of monographs--an\nevolution, indeed, in which the warfare of Theology against Science has\nbeen one of the most active and powerful agents. My belief is that in\nthe field left to them--their proper field--the clergy will more\nand more, as they cease to struggle against scientific methods and\nconclusions, do work even nobler and more beautiful than anything they\nhave heretofore done. And this is saying much. My conviction is that\nScience, though it has evidently conquered Dogmatic Theology based on\nbiblical texts and ancient modes of thought, will go hand in hand\nwith Religion; and that, although theological control will continue\nto diminish, Religion, as seen in the recognition of \"a Power in the\nuniverse, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness,\" and in the love\nof God and of our neighbor, will steadily grow stronger and stronger,\nnot only in the American institutions of learning but in the world\nat large. Thus may the declaration of Micah as to the requirements of\nJehovah, the definition by St. James of \"pure religion and undefiled,\"\nand, above all, the precepts and ideals of the blessed Founder of\nChristianity himself, be brought to bear more and more effectively on\nmankind.\n\nI close this preface some days after its first lines were written.\nThe sun of spring has done its work on the Neva; the great river flows\ntranquilly on, a blessing and a joy; the mujiks are forgotten. A. D. W.\n\nLEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, ST. PETERSBURG,\n\nApril 14,1894.\n\nP.S.--Owing to a wish to give more thorough revision to some parts of my\nwork, it has been withheld from the press until the present date. A. D.\nW.\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY, ITHACA, N.Y.,\n\nAugust 15, 1895.\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.\n\n  FROM CREATION TO EVOLUTION.\n  I.  The Visible Universe.\n  Ancient and medieval views regarding the manner of creation\n  Regarding the matter of creation\n  Regarding the time of creation\n  Regarding the date of creation\n  Regarding the Creator\n  Regarding light and darkness\n  Rise of the conception of an evolution: among the Chaldeans, the\n  Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans\n  Its survival through the Middle Ages, despite the disfavour of\n  the Church\n  Its development in modern times.--The nebular hypothesis and its\n  struggle with theology\n  The idea of evolution at last victorious\n  Our sacred books themselves an illustration of its truth\n  The true reconciliation of Science and Theology\n\n  II.  Theological Teachings regarding the Animals and Man.\n  Ancient and medieval representations of the creation of man\n  Literal acceptance of the book of Genesis by the Christian\n  fathers\n  By the Reformers\n  By modern theologians, Catholic and Protestant\n  Theological reasoning as to the divisions of the animal kingdom\n  The Physiologus, the Bestiaries, the Exempila\n  Beginnings of sceptical observation\n  Development of a scientific method in the study of Nature\n  Breaking down of the theological theory of creation\n\n  III.  Theological and Scientific Theories of an Evolution in\n  Animated Nature.\n  Ideas of evolution among the ancients\n  In the early Church\n  In the medieval Church\n  Development of these ideas from the sixteenth to the eighteenth\n  centuries\n  The work of De Maillet\n  Of Linneus\n  Of Buffon\n  Contributions to the theory of evolution at the close of the\n  eighteenth century\n  The work of Treviranus and Lamarck\n  Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Cuvier\n  Development of the theory up to the middle of the nineteenth\n  century\n  The contributions of Darwin and Wallace\n  The opposition of Agassiz\n\n  IV.  The Final Effort of Theology.\n  Attacks on Darwin and his theories in England\n  In America\n  Formation of sacro-scientific organizations to combat the theory\n  of evolution\n  The attack in France\n  In Germany\n  Conversion of Lyell to the theory of evolution\n  The attack of Darwin's Descent of Man\n  Difference between this and the former attack\n  Hostility to Darwinism in America\n  Change in the tone of the controversy.--Attempts at compromise\n  Dying-out of opposition to evolution\n  Last outbursts of theological hostility\n  Final victory of evolution\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  GEOGRAPHY\n\n  I.  The Form of the Earth.\n  Primitive conception of the earth as flat\n  In Chaldea and Egypt\n  In Persia\n  Among the Hebrews\n  Evolution, among the Greeks, of the idea of its sphericity\n  Opposition of the early Church\n  Evolution of a sacred theory, drawn from the Bible\n  Its completion by Cosmas Indicopleustes\n  Its influence on Christian thought\n  Survival of the idea of the earth's sphericity--its acceptance by\n  Isidore and Bede\n  Its struggle and final victory\n\n  II.  The Delineation of the Earth.\n  Belief of every ancient people that its own central place was the\n  centre of the earth\n  Hebrew conviction that the earth's centre was at Jerusalem\n  Acceptance of this view by Christianity\n  Influence of other Hebrew conceptions--Gog and Magog, the \"four\n  winds,\" the waters \"on an heap\"\n\n  III.  The Inhabitants of the Earth.\n  The idea of antipodes\n  Its opposition by the Christian Church--Gregory Nazianzen,\n  Lactantius, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Procopius of Gaza, Cosmas,\n  Isidore\n  Virgil of Salzburg's assertion of it in the eighth century\n  Its revival by William of Conches and Albert the Great in the\n  thirteenth\n  Surrender of it by Nicolas d'Oresme\n  Fate of Peter of Abano and Cecco d' Ascoli\n  Timidity of Pierre d'Ailly and Tostatus\n  Theological hindrance of Columbus\n  Pope Alexander VI's demarcation line\n  Cautious conservatism of Gregory Reysch\n  Magellan and the victory of science\n\n\n  IV.  The Size of the Earth.\n  Scientific attempts at measuring the earth\n  The sacred solution of the problem\n  Fortunate influence of the blunder upon Columbus\n\n\n  V.  The Character of the Earth's Surface.\n  Servetus and the charge of denying the fertility of Judea\n  Contrast between the theological and the religious spirit in\n  their effects on science\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  ASTRONOMY.\n\n  I.  The Old Sacred Theory of the Universe.\n  The early Church's conviction of the uselessness of astronomy\n  The growth of a sacred theory--Origen, the Gnostics, Philastrius,\n  Cosmas, Isidore\n  The geocentric, or Ptolemaic, theory, its origin, and its\n  acceptance by the Christian world\n  Development of the new sacred system of astronomy--the\n  pseudo-Dionysius, Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas\n  Its popularization by Dante\n  Its details\n  Its persistence to modern times\n\n  II.  The Heliocentric Theory.\n  Its rise among the Greeks--Pythagoras, Philolaus, Aristarchus\n  Its suppression by the charge of blasphemy\n  Its loss from sight for six hundred Years, then for a thousand\n  Its revival by Nicholas de Cusa and Nicholas Copernicus\n  Its toleration as a hypothesis\n  Its prohibition as soon as Galileo teaches it as a truth\n  Consequent timidity of scholars--Acosta, Apian\n  Protestantism not less zealous in opposition than\n  Catholicism--Luther Melanchthon, Calvin, Turretin\n  This opposition especially persistent in England--Hutchinson,\n  Pike, Horne, Horsley, Forbes, Owen, Wesley\n  Resulting interferences with freedom of teaching\n  Giordano Bruno's boldness and his fate\n  The truth demonstrated by the telescope of Galileo\n\n  III.  The War upon Galileo.\n  Concentration of the war on this new champion\n  The first attack\n  Fresh attacks--Elci, Busaeus, Caccini, Lorini, Bellarmin\n  Use of epithets\n  Attempts to entrap Galileo\n  His summons before the Inquisition at Rome\n  The injunction to silence, and the condemnation of the theory of\n  the earth's motion\n  The work of Copernicus placed on the Index\n  Galileo's seclusion\n  Renewed attacks upon Galileo--Inchofer, Fromundus\n\n  IV.  Victory of the Church over Galileo\n  Publication of his Dialogo\n  Hostility of Pope Urban VIII\n  Galileo's second trial by the Inquisition\n  His abjuration\n  Later persecution of him\n  Measures to complete the destruction of the Copernican theory\n  Persecution of Galileo's memory\n  Protestant hostility to the new astronomy and its champions\n\n  V.  Results of the Victory over Galileo.\n  Rejoicings of churchmen over the victory\n  The silencing of Descartes\n  Persecution of Campanella and of Kepler\n  Persistence and victory of science\n  Dilemma of the theologians\n  Vain attempts to postpone the surrender\n\n  VI.  The Retreat of the Church after its Victory over Galileo.\n  The easy path for the Protestant theologians\n  The difficulties of the older Church.--The papal infallibility\n  fully committed against the Copernican theory\n  Attempts at evasion--first plea: that Galileo was condemned not\n  for affirming the earth's motion, but for supporting it from\n  Scripture\n  Its easy refutation\n  Second plea: that he was condemned not for heresy, but for\n  contumacy\n  Folly of this assertion\n  Third plea: that it was all a quarrel between Aristotelian\n  professors and those favouring the experimental method\n  Fourth plea: that the condemnation of Galileo was \"provisory\"\n  Fifth plea: that he was no more a victim of Catholics than of\n  Protestants\n  Efforts to blacken Galileo's character\n  Efforts to suppress the documents of his trial\n  Their fruitlessness\n  Sixth plea: that the popes as popes had never condemned his\n  theory\n  Its confutation from their own mouths\n  Abandonment of the contention by honest Catholics\n  Two efforts at compromise--Newman, De Bonald\n  Effect of all this on thinking men\n  The fault not in Catholicism more than in Protestantism--not in\n  religion, but in theology\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  FROM \"SIGNS AND WONDERS\" TO LAW IN THE HEAVENS.\n\n  I.  The Theological View.\n  Early beliefs as to comets, meteors, and eclipses\n  Their inheritance by Jews and Christians\n  The belief regarding comets especially harmful as a source of\n  superstitious terror\n  Its transmission through the Middle Ages\n  Its culmination under Pope Calixtus III\n  Beginnings of scepticism--Copernicus, Paracelsus, Scaliger\n  Firmness of theologians, Catholic and Protestant, in its support\n\n  II.  Theological Efforts to crush the Scientific View.\n  The effort through the universities.--The effort through the\n  pulpits\n  Heerbrand at Tubingen and Dieterich at Marburg\n  Maestlin at Heidelberg\n  Buttner, Vossius, Torreblanca, Fromundus\n  Father Augustin de Angelis at Rome\n  Reinzer at Linz\n  Celichius at Magdeburg\n  Conrad Dieterich's sermon at Ulm\n  Erni and others in Switzerland\n  Comet doggerel\n  Echoes from New England--Danforth, Morton, Increase Mather\n\n  III.  The Invasion of Scepticism.\n  Rationalism of Cotton Mather, and its cause\n  Blaise de Vigenere\n  Erastus\n  Bekker, Lubienitzky, Pierre Petit\n  Bayle\n  Fontenelle\n  The scientific movement beneath all this\n\n  IV.  Theological Efforts at Compromise.--The Final Victory of\n  Science.\n  The admission that some comets are supralunar\n  Difference between scientific and theological reasoning\n  Development of the reasoning of Tycho and Kepler--Cassini, Hevel,\n  Doerfel, Bernouilli, Newton\n  Completion of the victory by Halley and Clairaut\n  Survivals of the superstition--Joseph de Maistre, Forster Arago's\n  statistics\n  The theories of Whiston and Burnet, and their influence in\n  Germany\n  The superstition ended in America by the lectures of Winthrop\n  Helpful influence of John Wesley\n  Effects of the victory\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  FROM GENESIS TO GEOLOGY.\n\n  I.  Growth of Theological Explanations\n  Germs of geological truth among the Greeks and Romans\n  Attitude of the Church toward science\n  Geological theories of the early theologians\n  Attitude of the schoolmen\n  Contributions of the Arabian schools\n  Theories of the earlier Protestants\n  Influence of the revival of learning\n\n  II.  Efforts to Suppress the Scientific View.\n  Revival of scientific methods\n  Buffon and the Sorbonne\n  Beringer's treatise on fossils\n  Protestant opposition to the new geology---the works of Burnet,\n  Whiston, Wesley, Clark,\n  Watson, Arnold, Cockburn, and others\n\n  III.  The First Great Effort of Compromise, based on the Flood of\n  Noah.\n  The theory that fossils were produced by the Deluge\n  Its acceptance by both Catholics and Protestants--Luther, Calmet\n  Burnet, Whiston, Woodward, Mazurier, Torrubia, Increase Mather\n  Scheuchzer\n  Voltaire's theory of fossils\n  Vain efforts of enlightened churchmen in behalf of the scientific\n  view\n  Steady progress of science--the work of Cuvier and Brongniart\n  Granvile Penn's opposition\n  The defection of Buckland and Lyell to the scientific side\n  Surrender of the theologians\n  Remnants of the old belief\n  Death-blow given to the traditional theory of the Deluge by the\n  discovery of the Chaldean accounts\n  Results of the theological opposition to science\n\n  IV.  Final Efforts at Compromise--The Victory of Science\n  complete.\n  Efforts of Carl von Raumer, Wagner, and others\n  The new testimony of the caves and beds of drift as to the\n  antiquity of man\n  Gosse's effort to save the literal interpretation of Genesis\n  Efforts of Continental theologians\n  Gladstone's attempt at a compromise\n  Its demolition by Huxley\n  By Canon Driver\n  Dean Stanley on the reconciliation of Science and Scripture\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN, EGYPTOLOGY, AND ASSYRIOLOGY.\n\n  I.  The Sacred Chronology.\n  Two fields in which Science has gained a definite victory over\n  Theology\n  Opinions of the Church fathers on the antiquity of man\n  The chronology of Isidore\n  Of Bede\n  Of the medieval Jewish scholars\n  The views of the Reformers on the antiquity of man\n  Of the Roman Church\n  Of Archbishop Usher\n  Influence of Egyptology on the belief in man's antiquity\n  La Peyrere's theory of the Pre-Adamites\n  Opposition in England to the new chronology\n\n  II.  The New Chronology.\n  Influence of the new science of Egyptology on biblical chronology\n\n  Manetho's history of Egypt and the new chronology derived from it\n  Evidence of the antiquity of man furnished by the monuments of\n  Egypt\n  By her art\n  By her science\n  By other elements of civilization\n  By the remains found in the bed of the Nile\n  Evidence furnished by the study of Assyriology\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY.\n  I.  The Thunder-stones.\n  Early beliefs regarding \"thunder-stones\"\n  Theories of Mercati and Tollius regarding them\n  Their identification with the implements of prehistoric man\n  Remains of man found in caverns\n  Unfavourable influence on scientific activity of the political\n  conditions of the early part of the nineteenth century\n  Change effected by the French Revolution of to {??}\n  Rallying of the reactionary clerical influence against science\n\n  II.  The Flint Weapons and Implements.\n  Boucher de Perthes's contributions to the knowledge of\n  prehistoric man\n  His conclusions confirmed by Lyell and others\n  Cave explorations of Lartet and Christy\n  Evidence of man's existence furnished by rude carvings\n  Cave explorations in the British Islands\n  Evidence of man's existence in the Drift period\n  In the early Quaternary and in the Tertiary periods\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  THE \"FALL OF MAN\" AND ANTHROPOLOGY.\n\n  The two antagonistic views regarding the life of man on the\n  earth\n  The theory of \"the Fall\" among ancient peoples\n  Inheritance of this view by the Christian Church\n  Appearance among the Greeks and Romans of the theory of a rise of\n  man\n  Its disappearance during the Middle Ages\n  Its development since the seventeenth century\n  The first blow at the doctrine of \"the Fall\" comes from geology\n  Influence of anthropology on the belief in this doctrine\n  The finding of human skulls in Quaternary deposits\n  Their significance\n  Results obtained from the comparative study of the remains of\n  human handiwork\n  Discovery of human remains in shell-heaps on the shores of the\n  Baltic Sea\n  In peat-beds\n  The lake-dwellers\n  Indications of the upward direction of man's development\n  Mr. Southall's attack on the theory of man's antiquity\n  An answer to it\n  Discovery of prehistoric human remains in Egypt\n  Hamard's attack on the new scientific conclusions\n  The survival of prehistoric implements in religious rites\n  Strength of the argument against the theory of \"the Fall of Man\"\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  THE \"FALL OF MAN\" AND ETHNOLOGY.\n\n  The beginnings of the science of Comparative Ethnology\n  Its testimony to the upward tendency of man from low beginning\n  Theological efforts to break its force--De Maistre and DeBonald\n  Whately's attempt\n  The attempt of the Duke of Argyll\n  Evidence of man's upward tendency derived from Comparative\n  Philology\n  From Comparative Literature and Folklore\n  From Comparative Ethnography\n  From Biology\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  THE \"FALL OF MAN\" AND HISTORY.\n\n  Proof of progress given by the history of art\n  Proofs from general history\n  Development of civilization even under unfavourable circumstances\n  Advancement even through catastrophes and the decay of\n  civilizations\n  Progress not confined to man's material condition\n  Theological struggle against the new scientific view\n  Persecution of Prof. Winchell\n  Of Dr. Woodrow\n  Other interferences with freedom of teaching\n  The great harm thus done to religion\n  Rise of a better spirit\n  The service rendered to religion by Anthropology\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  FROM \"THE PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR\" TO METEOROLOGY.\n\n  I.  Growth of a Theological Theory.\n  The beliefs of classical antiquity regarding storms, thunder, and\n  lightning\n  Development of a sacred science of meteorology by the fathers of\n  the Church\n  Theories of Cosmas Indicopleustes\n  Of Isidore\n  Of Seville\n  Of Bede\n  Of Rabanus Maurus\n  Rational views of Honorius of Autun\n  Orthodox theories of John of San Geminiano\n  Attempt of Albert the Great to reconcile the speculations of\n  Aristotle with the theological views\n  The monkish encyclopedists\n  Theories regarding the rainbow and the causes of storms\n  Meteorological phenomena attributed to the Almighty\n\n  II.  Diabolical Agency in Storms.\n  Meteorological phenomena attributed to the devil--\"the prince of\n  the power of the air\"\n  Propagation of this belief by the medieval theologians\n  Its transmission to both Catholics and Protestants--Eck, Luther\n  The great work of Delrio\n  Guacci's Compendium\n  The employment of prayer against \"the powers of the air\"\n  Of exorcisms\n  Of fetiches and processions\n  Of consecrated church bells\n\n  III.  The Agency of Witches.\n  The fearful results of the witch superstition\n  Its growth out of the doctrine of evil agency in atmospheric\n  phenomena\n  Archbishop Agobard's futile attempt to dispel it\n  Its sanction by the popes\n  Its support by confessions extracted by torture\n  Part taken in the persecution by Dominicans and Jesuits\n  Opponents of the witch theory--Pomponatius, Paracelsus, Agrippa\n  of Nettesheim\n  Jean Bodin's defence of the superstition\n  Fate of Cornelius Loos\n  Of Dietrich Flade\n  Efforts of Spee to stem the persecution\n  His posthumous influence\n  Upholders of the orthodox view--Bishop Binsfeld, Remigius\n  Vain protests of Wier\n  Persecution of Bekker for opposing the popular belief\n  Effect of the Reformation in deepening the superstition\n  The persecution in Great Britain and America\n  Development of a scientific view of the heavens\n  Final efforts to revive the old belief\n\n  IV.  Franklin's Lightning-Rod.\n  Franklin's experiments with the kite\n  Their effect on the old belief\n  Efforts at compromise between the scientific and theological\n  theories\n  Successful use of the lightning-rod\n  Religious scruples against it in America\n  In England\n  In Austria\n  In Italy\n  Victory of the scientific theory\n  This victory exemplified in the case of the church of the\n  monastery of Lerins\n  In the case of Dr. Moorhouse\n  In the case of the Missouri droughts\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  FROM MAGIC TO CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.\n\n  I.  The Supremacy of Magic.\n  Primitive tendency to belief in magic\n  The Greek conception of natural laws\n  Influence of Plato and Aristotle on the growth of science\n  Effect of the establishment of Christianity on the development of\n  the physical sciences\n  The revival of thought in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries\n  Albert the Great\n  Vincent of Beauvais\n  Thomas Aquinas\n  Roger Bacon's beginning of the experimental method brought to\n  nought\n  The belief that science is futile gives place to the belief that\n  it is dangerous\n  The two kinds of magic\n  Rarity of persecution for magic before the Christian era\n  The Christian theory of devils\n  Constantine's laws against magic\n  Increasing terror of magic and witchcraft\n  Papal enactments against them\n  Persistence of the belief in magic\n  Its effect on the development of science\n  Roger Bacon\n  Opposition of secular rulers to science\n  John Baptist Porta\n  The opposition to scientific societies in Italy\n  In England\n  The effort to turn all thought from science to religion\n  The development of mystic theology\n  Its harmful influence on science\n  Mixture of theological with scientific speculation\n  This shown in the case of Melanchthon\n  In that of Francis Bacon\n  Theological theory of gases\n  Growth of a scientific theory\n  Basil Valentine and his contributions to chemistry\n  Triumph of the scientific theory\n\n  II.  The Triumph of Chemistry and Physics.\n  New epoch in chemistry begun by Boyle\n  Attitude of the mob toward science\n  Effect on science of the reaction following the French\n  Revolution:  {?}\n  Development of chemistry since the middle of the nineteenth\n  century\n  Development of physics\n  Modern opposition to science in Catholic countries\n  Attack of scientific education in France\n  In England\n  In Prussia\n  Revolt against the subordination of education to science\n  Effect of the International Exhibition of ii {?} at London\n  Of the endowment of State colleges in America by the Morrill\n  Act of 1862\n  The results to religion\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  FROM MIRACLES TO MEDICINE.\n\n  I.  THE EARLY AND SACRED THEORIES OF DISEASE.\n  Naturalness of the idea of supernatural intervention in causing\n  and curing disease\n  Prevalence of this idea in ancient civilizations\n  Beginnings of a scientific theory of medicine\n  The twofold influence of Christianity on the healing art\n\n  II.  GROWTH OF LEGENDS OF HEALING.--THE LIFE OF XAVIER AS A\n  TYPICAL EXAMPLE.\n  Growth of legends of miracles about the lives of great\n  benefactors of humanity\n  Sketch of Xavier's career\n  Absence of miraculous accounts in his writings and those of his\n  contemporaries\n  Direct evidence that Xavier wrought no miracles\n  Growth of legends of miracles as shown in the early biographies\n  of him\n  As shown in the canonization proceedings\n  Naturalness of these legends\n\n  III.  THE MEDIAEVAL MIRACLES OF HEALING CHECK MEDICAL SCIENCE.\n  Character of the testimony regarding miracles\n  Connection of mediaeval with pagan miracles\n  Their basis of fact\n  Various kinds of miraculous cures\n  Atmosphere of supernaturalism thrown about all cures\n  Influence of this atmosphere on medical science\n\n  IV.  THE ATTRIBUTION OF DISEASE TO SATANIC INFLUENCE.--\"PASTORAL\n  MEDICINE\" CHECKS SCIENTIFIC EFFORT.\n  Theological theory as to the cause of disease\n  Influence of self-interest on \"pastoral medicine\"\n  Development of fetichism at Cologne and elsewhere\n  Other developments of fetich cure\n\n  V.  THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO ANATOMICAL STUDIES.\n  Medieval belief in the unlawfulness of meddling with the bodies\n  of the dead\n  Dissection objected to on the ground that \"the Church abhors the\n  shedding of blood\"\n  The decree of Boniface VIII and its results\n\n  VI.  NEW BEGINNINGS OF MEDICAL SCIENCE.\n  Galen\n  Scanty development of medical science in the Church\n  Among Jews and Mohammedans\n  Promotion of medical science by various Christian laymen of the\n  Middle Ages\n  By rare men of science\n  By various ecclesiastics\n\n  VII.  THEOLOGICAL DISCOURAGEMENT OF MEDICINE.\n  Opposition to seeking cure from disease by natural means\n  Requirement of ecclesiastical advice before undertaking medical\n  treatment\n  Charge of magic and Mohammedanism against men of science\n  Effect of ecclesiastical opposition to medicine\n  The doctrine of signatures\n  The doctrine of exorcism\n  Theological opposition to surgery\n  Development of miracle and fetich cures\n  Fashion in pious cures\n  Medicinal properties of sacred places\n  Theological argument in favour of miraculous cures\n  Prejudice against Jewish physicians\n\n  VIII.  FETICH CURES UNDER PROTESTANTISM.--THE ROYAL TOUCH.\n  Luther's theory of disease\n  The royal touch\n  Cures wrought by Charles II\n  By James II\n  By William III\n  By Queen Anne\n  By Louis XIV\n  Universal acceptance of these miracles\n\n  IX.  THE SCIENTIFIC STRUGGLE FOR ANATOMY.\n  Occasional encouragement of medical science in the Middle Ages\n  New impulse given by the revival of learning and the age of\n  discovery\n  Paracelsus and Mundinus\n  Vesalius, the founder of the modern science of anatomy.--His\n  career and fate\n\n  X.  THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO INOCULATION, VACCINATION, AND THE\n  USE OF ANAESTHETICS.\n  Theological opposition to inoculation in Europe\n  In America\n  Theological opposition to vaccination\n  Recent hostility to vaccination in England\n  In Canada, during the smallpox epidemic\n  Theological opposition to the use of cocaine\n  To the use of quinine\n  Theological opposition to the use of anesthetics\n\n  XI.  FINAL BREAKING AWAY OF THE THEOLOGICAL THEORY IN MEDICINE.\n  Changes incorporated in the American Book of Common Prayer\n  Effect on the theological view of the growing knowledge of the\n  relation between imagination and medicine\n  Effect of the discoveries in hypnotism\n  In bacteriology\n  Relation between ascertained truth and the \"ages of faith\"\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIV.\n\n  FROM FETICH TO HYGIENE.\n\n  I.  THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW OF EPIDEMICS AND SANITATION.\n  The recurrence of great pestilences\n  Their early ascription to the wrath or malice of unseen powers\n  Their real cause want of hygienic precaution\n  Theological apotheosis of filth\n  Sanction given to the sacred theory of pestilence by Pope Gregory\n  the Great\n  Modes of propitiating the higher powers\n  Modes of thwarting the powers of evil\n  Persecution of the Jews as Satan's emissaries\n  Persecution of witches as Satan's emissaries\n  Case of the Untori at Milan\n  New developments of fetichism.--The blood of St. Januarius at\n  Naples\n  Appearance of better methods in Italy.--In Spain\n\n  II.  GRADUAL DECAY OF THEOLOGICAL VIEWS REGARDING SANITATION.\n  Comparative freedom of England from persecutions for\n  plague-bringing, in spite of her wretched sanitary condition\n  Aid sought mainly through church services\n  Effects of the great fire in London\n  The jail fever\n  The work of John Howard\n  Plagues in the American colonies\n  In France.--The great plague at Marseilles\n  Persistence of the old methods in Austria\n  In Scotland\n\n  III.  THE TRIUMPH OF SANITARY SCIENCE.\n  Difficulty of reconciling the theological theory of pestilences\n  with accumulating facts\n  Curious approaches to a right theory\n  The law governing the relation of theology to disease\n  Recent victories of hygiene in all countries\n  In England.---Chadwick and his fellows\n  In France\n\n  IV.  THE RELATION OF SANITARY SCIENCE TO RELIGION.\n  The process of sanitary science not at the cost of religion\n  Illustration from the policy of Napoleon III in France\n  Effect of proper sanitation on epidemics in the United States\n  Change in the attitude of the Church toward the cause and cure of\n  pestilence\n\n\n  CHAPTER XV.\n\n  FROM \"DEMONIACAL POSSESSION\" TO INSANITY.\n\n  I.  THEOLOGICAL IDEAS OF LUNACY AND ITS TREATMENT.\n  The struggle for the scientific treatment of the insane\n  The primitive ascription of insanity to evil spirits\n  Better Greek and Roman theories--madness a disease\n  The Christian Church accepts the demoniacal theory of insanity\n  Yet for a time uses mild methods for the insane\n  Growth of the practice of punishing the indwelling demon\n  Two sources whence better things might have been hoped.--The\n  reasons of their futility\n  The growth of exorcism\n  Use of whipping and torture\n  The part of art and literature in making vivid to the common mind\n  the idea of diabolic activity\n  The effects of religious processions as a cure for mental disease\n  Exorcism of animals possessed of demons\n  Belief in the transformation of human beings into animals\n  The doctrine of demoniacal possession in the Reformed Church\n\n  II.  BEGINNINGS OF A HEALTHFUL SCEPTICISM.\n  Rivalry between Catholics and Protestants in the casting out of\n  devils\n  Increased belief in witchcraft during the period following the\n  Reformation\n  Increase of insanity during the witch persecutions   II  {?}\n  Attitude of physicians toward witchcraft    I\n  Religious hallucinations of the insane    I\n  Theories as to the modes of diabolic entrance into the possessed\n  Influence of monastic life on the development of insanity\n  Protests against the theological view of insanity--Wier,\n  Montaigue Bekker\n  Last struggles of the old superstition\n\n  III.  THE FINAL STRUGGLE AND VICTORY OF SCIENCE.--PINEL AND TUKE.\n  Influence of French philosophy on the belief in demoniacal\n  possession\n  Reactionary influence of John Wesley\n  Progress of scientific ideas in Prussia\n  In Austria\n  In America\n  In South Germany\n  General indifference toward the sufferings of madmen\n  The beginnings of a more humane treatment\n  Jean Baptiste Pinel\n  Improvement in the treatment of the insane in England.--William\n  Tuke\n  The place of Pinel and Tuke in history\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVI.\n\n  FROM DIABOLISM TO HYSTERIA.\n\n  I.  THE EPIDEMICS OF \"POSSESSION.\"\n  Survival of the belief in diabolic activity as the cause of such\n  epidemics\n  Epidemics of hysteria in classical times\n  In the Middle Ages\n  The dancing mania\n  Inability of science during the fifteenth century to cope with\n  such diseases\n  Cases of possession brought within the scope of medical research\n  during the sixteenth century\n  Dying-out of this form of mental disease in northern Europe\n  In Italy\n  Epidemics of hysteria in the convents\n  The case of Martha Brossier\n  Revival in France of belief in diabolic influence\n  The Ursulines of Loudun and Urbain Grandier\n  Possession among the Huguenots\n  In New England.--The Salem witch persecution\n  At Paris.--Alleged miracles at the grave of Archdeacon Paris\n  In Germany.--Case of Maria Renata Sanger\n  More recent outbreaks\n\n  II.  BEGINNINGS OF HELPFUL SCEPTICISM.\n  Outbreaks of hysteria in factories and hospitals\n  In places of religious excitement\n  The case at Morzine\n  Similar cases among Protestants and in Africa\n\n  III.  THEOLOGICAL \"RESTATEMENTS.\"--FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE\n  SCIENTIFIC VIEW AND METHODS.\n  Successful dealings of medical science with mental diseases\n  Attempts to give a scientific turn to the theory of diabolic\n  agency in disease\n  Last great demonstration of the old belief in England\n  Final triumph of science in the latter half of the present\n  century\n  Last echoes of the old belief\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVII.\n\n  FROM BABEL TO COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY.\n\n  I.  THE SACRED THEORY IN ITS FIRST FORM.\n  Difference of the history of Comparative Philology from that of\n  other sciences as regards the attitude of theologians\n  Curiosity of early man regarding the origin, the primitive form,\n  and the diversity of language\n  The Hebrew answer to these questions\n  The legend of the Tower of Babel\n  The real reason for the building of towers by the Chaldeans and\n  the causes of their ruin\n  Other legends of a confusion of tongues\n  Influence upon Christendom of the Hebrew legends\n  Lucretius's theory of the origin of language\n  The teachings of the Church fathers on this subject\n  The controversy as to the divine origin of the Hebrew vowel\n  points\n  Attitude of the reformers toward this question\n  Of Catholic scholars.--Marini Capellus and his adversaries\n  The treatise of Danzius\n\n  II.  THE SACRED THEORY OF LANGUAGE IN ITS SECOND FORM.\n  Theological theory that Hebrew was the primitive tongue, divinely\n  revealed\n  This theory supported by all Christian scholars until the\n  beginning of the eighteenth century\n  Dissent of Prideaux and Cotton Mather\n  Apparent strength of the sacred theory of language\n\n  III.  BREAKING DOWN OF THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW.\n  Reason for the Church's ready acceptance of the conclusions of\n  comparative philology\n  Beginnings of a scientific theory of language\n  Hottinger\n  Leibnitz\n  The collections of Catharine the Great, of Hervas, and of Adelung\n  Chaotic period in philology between Leibnitz and the beginning of\n  the study of Sanskrit\n  Illustration from the successive editions of the Encyclopaedia\n  Britannica\n\n  IV.  TRIUMPH OF THE NEW SCIENCE.\n  Effect of the discovery of Sanskrit on the old theory\n  Attempts to discredit the new learning\n  General acceptance of the new theory\n  Destruction of the belief that all created things were first\n  named by Adam\n  Of the belief in the divine origin of letters\n  Attempts in England to support the old theory of language\n  Progress of philological science in France\n  In Germany\n  In Great Britain\n  Recent absurd attempts to prove Hebrew the primitive tongue\n\n  V.  SUMMARY.\n  Gradual disappearance of the old theories regarding the origin of\n  speech and writing\n  Full acceptance of the new theories by all Christian scholars\n  The result to religion, and to the Bible\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XVIII.\n  FROM THE DEAD SEA LEGENDS TO COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY,\n\n  I.  THE GROWTH OF EXPLANATORY TRANSFORMATION MYTHS.\n  Growth of myths to account for remarkable appearances in\n  Nature--mountains, rocks, curiously marked stones, fossils,\n  products of volcanic action\n  Myths of the transformation of living beings into natural objects\n  Development of the science of Comparative Mythology\n\n  II.  MEDIAEVAL GROWTH OF THE DEAD SEA LEGENDS.\n  Description of the Dead Sea\n  Impression made by its peculiar features on the early dwellers in\n  Palestine\n  Reasons for selecting the Dead Sea myths for study\n  Naturalness of the growth of legend regarding the salt region of\n  Usdum\n  Universal belief in these legends\n  Concurrent testimony of early and mediaeval writers, Jewish and\n  Christian, respecting the existence of Lot's wife as a \"pillar of\n  salt,\" and of the other wonders of the Dead Sea\n  Discrepancies in the various accounts and theological\n  explanations of them\n  Theological arguments respecting the statue of Lot's wife\n  Growth of the legend in the sixteenth century\n\n  III.  POST-REFORMATION CULMINATION OF THE DEAD SEA\n  LEGENDS.--BEGINNINGS OF A HEALTHFUL SCEPTICISM.\n  Popularization of the older legends at the Reformation\n  Growth of new myths among scholars\n  Signs of scepticism among travellers near the end of the\n  sixteenth century\n  Effort of Quaresmio to check this tendency\n  Of Eugene Roger\n  Of Wedelius\n  Influence of these teachings\n  Renewed scepticism--the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries\n  Efforts of Briemle and Masius in support of the old myths\n  Their influence\n  The travels of Mariti and of Volney\n  Influence of scientific thought on the Dead Sea legends during\n  the eighteenth century\n  Reactionary efforts of Chateaubriand\n  Investigations of the naturalist Seetzen\n  Of Dr. Robinson\n  The expedition of Lieutenant Lynch\n  The investigations of De Saulcy\n  Of the Duc de Luynes.--Lartet's report\n  Summary of the investigations of the nineteenth\n  century.--Ritter's verdict\n\n\n  IV.  THEOLOGICAL EFFORTS AT COMPROMISE.--TRIUMPH OF THE\n  SCIENTIFIC VIEW.\n  Attempts to reconcile scientific facts with the Dead Sea legends\n  Van de Velde's investigations of the Dead Sea region\n  Canon Tristram's\n  Mgr.  Mislin's protests against the growing rationalism\n  The work of Schaff and Osborn\n  Acceptance of the scientific view by leaders in the Church\n  Dr. Geikie's ascription of the myths to the Arabs\n  Mgr. Haussmann de Wandelburg and his rejection of the scientific\n  view\n  Service of theologians to religion in accepting the conclusions\n  of silence in this field\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIX.\n\n  FROM LEVITICUS TO POLITICAL ECONOMY\n\n  I.  ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF HOSTILITY TO LOANS AT INTEREST.\n  Universal belief in the sin of loaning money at interest\n  The taking of interest among the Greeks and Romans\n  Opposition of leaders of thought, especially Aristotle\n  Condemnation of the practice by the Old and New Testaments\n  By the Church fathers\n  In ecclesiastical and secular legislation\n  Exception sometimes made in behalf of the Jews\n  Hostility of the pulpit\n  Of the canon law\n  Evil results of the prohibition of loans at interest\n  Efforts to induce the Church to change her position\n  Theological evasions of the rule\n  Attitude of the Reformers toward the taking of interest\n  Struggle in England for recognition of the right to accept\n  interest\n  Invention of a distinction between usury and interest\n\n  II.  RETREAT OF THE CHURCH, PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC.\n  Sir Robert Filmer's attack on the old doctrine\n  Retreat of the Protestant Church in Holland\n  In Germany and America\n  Difficulties in the way of compromise in the Catholic Church\n  Failure of such attempts in France\n  Theoretical condemnation of usury in Italy\n  Disregard of all restrictions in practice\n  Attempts of Escobar and Liguori to reconcile the taking of\n  interest with the teachings of the Church\n  Montesquieu's attack on the old theory\n  Encyclical of Benedict XIV permitting the taking of interest\n  Similar decision of the Inquisition at Rome\n  Final retreat of the Catholic Church\n  Curious dealings of theology with public economy in other fields\n\n\n\n  CHAPTER XX.\n\n  FROM THE DIVINE ORACLES TO THE HIGHER CRITICISM.\n\n\n  I.  THE OLDER INTERPRETATION.\n  Character of the great sacred\n  books of the world\n  General laws governing the development and influence of sacred\n  literature.--The law of its origin\n  Legends concerning the Septuagint\n  The law of wills and causes\n  The law of inerrancy\n  Hostility to the revision of King James's translation of the\n  Bible\n  The law of unity\n  Working of these laws seen in the great rabbinical schools\n  The law of allegorical interpretation\n  Philo\n  Judaeus\n  Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria\n  Occult significance of numbers\n  Origen\n  Hilary of Poitiers and Jerome\n  Augustine\n  Gregory the Great\n  Vain attempts to check the flood of allegorical interpretations\n  Bede.--Savonarola\n  Methods of modern criticism for the first time employed by\n  Lorenzo Valla\n  Erasmus\n  Influence of the Reformation on the belief in the infallibility\n  of the sacred books.--Luther and Melanchthon\n  Development of scholasticism in the Reformed Church\n  Catholic belief in the inspiration of the Vulgate\n  Opposition in Russia to the revision of the Slavonic Scriptures\n  Sir Isaac Newton as a commentator\n  Scriptural interpretation at the beginning of the eighteenth\n  century\n\n  II.  BEGINNINGS OF SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION.\n  Theological beliefs regarding the Pentateuch\n  The book of Genesis\n  Doubt thrown on the sacred theory by Aben Ezra\n  By Carlstadt and Maes\n  Influence of the discovery that the Isidorian\n  Decretals were forgeries\n  That the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite were\n  serious\n  Hobbes and La Peyrere\n  Spinoza\n  Progress of biblical criticism in France.--Richard Simon\n  LeClerc\n  Bishop Lowth\n  Astruc\n  Eichhorn's application of the \"higher criticism\" to biblical\n  research\n  Isenbiehl\n  Herder\n  Alexander Geddes\n  Opposition to the higher criticism in Germany\n  Hupfeld\n  Vatke and Reuss\n  Kuenen\n  Wellhausen\n\n  III.  THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION.\n  Progress of the higher criticism in Germany and Holland\n  Opposition to it in England\n  At the University of Oxford\n  Pusey\n  Bentley\n  Wolf\n  Niebuhr and Arnold\n  Milman\n  Thirlwall and Grote\n  The publication of Essays and Reviews, and the storm raised by\n  book\n\n  IV.  THE CLOSING STRUGGLE.\n  Colenso's work on the Pentateuch\n  The persecution of him\n  Bishop Wilberforce's part in it\n  Dean Stanley's\n  Bishop Thirlwall's\n  Results of Colenso's work\n  Sanday's Bampton Lectures\n  Keble College and Lux\n  Mundi\n  Progress of biblical criticism among the dissenters\n  In France.--Renan\n  In the Roman Catholic Church\n  The encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII\n  In America.--Theodore Parker\n  Apparent strength of the old theory of inspiration\n  Real strength of the new movement\n\n  V.  VICTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY METHODS.\n  Confirmation of the conclusions of the higher criticism by\n  Assyriology and Egyptology\n  Light thrown upon Hebrew religion by the translation of the\n  sacred books of the East\n  The influence of Persian thought.--The work of the Rev. Dr. Mills\n  The influence of Indian thought.--Light thrown by the study of\n  Brahmanism and Buddhism\n  The work of Fathers Huc and Gabet\n  Discovery that Buddha himself had been canonized as a Christian\n  saint\n  Similarity between the ideas and legends of Buddhism and those of\n  Christianity\n  The application of the higher criticism to the New Testament\n  The English \"Revised Version\" of Studies on the formation of the\n  canon of Scripture\n  Recognition of the laws governing its development\n  Change in the spirit of the controversy over the higher criticism\n\n  VI.  RECONSTRUCTIVE FORCE OF SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM.\n  Development of a scientific atmosphere during the last three\n  centuries\n  Action of modern science in reconstruction of religious truth\n\n  Change wrought by it in the conception of a sacred literature\n\n  Of the Divine Power.--Of man.---Of the world at large\n  Of our Bible\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.  FROM CREATION TO EVOLUTION.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE.\n\n\nAmong those masses of cathedral sculpture which preserve so much of\nmedieval theology, one frequently recurring group is noteworthy for\nits presentment of a time-honoured doctrine regarding the origin of the\nuniverse.\n\nThe Almighty, in human form, sits benignly, making the sun, moon, and\nstars, and hanging them from the solid firmament which supports the\n\"heaven above\" and overarches the \"earth beneath.\"\n\nThe furrows of thought on the Creator's brow show that in this work he\nis obliged to contrive; the knotted muscles upon his arms show that he\nis obliged to toil; naturally, then, the sculptors and painters of\nthe medieval and early modern period frequently represented him as the\nwriters whose conceptions they embodied had done--as, on the seventh\nday, weary after thought and toil, enjoying well-earned repose and the\nplaudits of the hosts of heaven.\n\nIn these thought-fossils of the cathedrals, and in other revelations of\nthe same idea through sculpture, painting, glass-staining, mosaic work,\nand engraving, during the Middle Ages and the two centuries following,\nculminated a belief which had been developed through thousands of years,\nand which has determined the world's thought until our own time.\n\nIts beginnings lie far back in human history; we find them among the\nearly records of nearly all the great civilizations, and they hold a\nmost prominent place in the various sacred books of the world. In nearly\nall of them is revealed the conception of a Creator of whom man is an\nimperfect image, and who literally and directly created the visible\nuniverse with his hands and fingers.\n\nAmong these theories, of especial interest to us are those which\ncontrolled theological thought in Chaldea. The Assyrian inscriptions\nwhich have been recently recovered and given to the English-speaking\npeoples by Layard, George Smith, Sayce, and others, show that in the\nancient religions of Chaldea and Babylonia there was elaborated a\nnarrative of the creation which, in its most important features, must\nhave been the source of that in our own sacred books. It has now become\nperfectly clear that from the same sources which inspired the accounts\nof the creation of the universe among the Chaldeo-Babylonian, the\nAssyrian, the Phoenician, and other ancient civilizations came the ideas\nwhich hold so prominent a place in the sacred books of the Hebrews. In\nthe two accounts imperfectly fused together in Genesis, and also in\nthe account of which we have indications in the book of Job and in the\nProverbs, there, is presented, often with the greatest sublimity,\nthe same early conception of the Creator and of the creation--the\nconception, so natural in the childhood of civilization, of a Creator\nwho is an enlarged human being working literally with his own hands,\nand of a creation which is \"the work of his fingers.\" To supplement this\nview there was developed the belief in this Creator as one who, having\n\n\n... \"from his ample palm Launched forth the rolling planets into space.\"\n\nsits on high, enthroned \"upon the circle of the heavens,\" perpetually\ncontrolling and directing them.\n\nFrom this idea of creation was evolved in time a somewhat nobler view.\nAncient thinkers, and especially, as is now found, in Egypt, suggested\nthat the main agency in creation was not the hands and fingers of the\nCreator, but his VOICE. Hence was mingled with the earlier, cruder\nbelief regarding the origin of the earth and heavenly bodies by\nthe Almighty the more impressive idea that \"he spake and they were\nmade\"--that they were brought into existence by his WORD.(1)\n\n\n     (1) Among the many mediaeval representations of the creation of the\nuniverse, I especially recall from personal observation those sculptured\nabove the portals of the cathedrals of Freiburg and Upsala, the\npaintings on the walls of the Campo Santo at Pisa, and most striking of\nall, the mosaics of the Cathedral of Monreale and those in the Capella\nPalatina at Palermo. Among peculiarities showing the simplicity of the\nearlier conception the representation of the response of the Almighty\non the seventh day is very striking. He is shown as seated in almost the\nexact attitude of the \"Weary Mercury\" of classic sculpture--bent, and\nwith a very marked expression of fatigue upon his countenance and in the\nwhole disposition of his body.\n\nThe Monreale mosaics are pictured in the great work of Gravina, and in\nthe Pisa frescoes in Didron's Iconographie, Paris, 1843, p. 598. For\nan exact statement of the resemblances which have settled the question\namong the most eminent scholars in favour of the derivation of the\nHebrew cosmogony from that of Assyria, see Jensen, Die Kosmologie\nder Babylonier, Strassburg, 1890, pp. 304,306; also Franz Lukas, Die\nGrundbegriffe in den Kosmographien der alten Volker, Leipsic, 1893,\npp. 35-46; also George Smith's Chaldean Genesis, especially the German\ntranslation with additions by Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1876, and Schrader,\nDie Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, Giessen, 1883, pp. 1-54,\netc. See also Renan, Histoire du peuple d'Israel, vol. i, chap i,\nL'antique influence babylonienne. For Egyptian views regarding creation,\nand especially for the transition from the idea of creation by the hands\nand fingers of the Creator to creation by his VOICE and his \"word,\" see\nMaspero and Sayce, The Dawn of Civilization, pp. 145-146.\n\n\nAmong the early fathers of the Church this general view of creation\nbecame fundamental; they impressed upon Christendom more and more\nstrongly the belief that the universe was created in a perfectly literal\nsense by the hands or voice of God. Here and there sundry theologians of\nlarger mind attempted to give a more spiritual view regarding some parts\nof the creative work, and of these were St. Gregory of Nyssa and St.\nAugustine. Ready as they were to accept the literal text of Scripture,\nthey revolted against the conception of an actual creation of the\nuniverse by the hands and fingers of a Supreme Being, and in this\nthey were followed by Bede and a few others; but the more material\nconceptions prevailed, and we find these taking shape not only in the\nsculptures and mosaics and stained glass of cathedrals, and in the\nilluminations of missals and psalters, but later, at the close of the\nMiddle Ages, in the pictured Bibles and in general literature.\n\nInto the Anglo-Saxon mind this ancient material conception of the\ncreation was riveted by two poets whose works appealed especially to the\ndeeper religious feelings. In the seventh century Caedmon paraphrased\nthe account given in Genesis, bringing out this material conception in\nthe most literal form; and a thousand years later Milton developed out\nof the various statements in the Old Testament, mingled with a theology\nregarding \"the creative Word\" which had been drawn from the New, his\ndescription of the creation by the second person in the Trinity, than\nwhich nothing could be more literal and material:\n\n     \"He took the golden compasses, prepared\n     In God's eternal store, to circumscribe\n     This universe and all created things.\n     One foot he centred, and the other turned\n     Round through the vast profundity obscure,\n     And said, 'Thus far extend, thus far thy bounds:\n     This be thy just circumference, O world!'\"(2)\n\n\n\n     (2) For Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, and the general subject of the\ndevelopment of an evolution theory among the Greeks, see the excellent\nwork by Dr. Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, pp.33 and following; for\nCaedmon, see any edition--I have used Bouterwek's, Gutersloh, 1854; for\nMilton, see Paradise Lost, book vii, lines 225-231.\n\n\nSo much for the orthodox view of the MANNER of creation.\n\nThe next point developed in this theologic evolution had reference to\nthe MATTER of which the universe was made, and it was decided by an\noverwhelming majority that no material substance existed before the\ncreation of the material universe--that \"God created everything out of\nnothing.\" Some venturesome thinkers, basing their reasoning upon the\nfirst verses of Genesis, hinted at a different view--namely, that the\nmass, \"without form and void,\" existed before the universe; but this\ndoctrine was soon swept out of sight. The vast majority of the fathers\nwere explicit on this point. Tertullian especially was very severe\nagainst those who took any other view than that generally accepted as\northodox: he declared that, if there had been any pre-existing matter\nout of which the world was formed, Scripture would have mentioned it;\nthat by not mentioning it God has given us a clear proof that there\nwas no such thing; and, after a manner not unknown in other theological\ncontroversies, he threatens Hermogenes, who takes the opposite view,\nwith the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the\nwritten word.\n\nSt. Augustine, who showed signs of a belief in a pre-existence of\nmatter, made his peace with the prevailing belief by the simple\nreasoning that, \"although the world has been made of some material, that\nvery same material must have been made out of nothing.\"\n\nIn the wake of these great men the universal Church steadily followed.\nThe Fourth Lateran Council declared that God created everything out\nof nothing; and at the present hour the vast majority of the\nfaithful--whether Catholic or Protestant--are taught the same doctrine;\non this point the syllabus of Pius IX and the Westminster Catechism\nfully agree.(3)\n\n\n\n     (3) For Tertullian, see Tertullian against Hermogenes, chaps. xx and\nxxii; for St. Augustine regarding \"creation from nothing,\" see the De\nGenesi contra Manichaeos, lib, i, cap. vi; for St. Ambrose, see the\nHexameron, lib, i, cap iv; for the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council,\nand the view received in the Church to-day, see the article Creation in\nAddis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary.\n\n\nHaving thus disposed of the manner and matter of creation, the next\nsubject taken up by theologians was the TIME required for the great\nwork.\n\nHere came a difficulty. The first of the two accounts given in Genesis\nextended the creative operation through six days, each of an evening\nand a morning, with much explicit detail regarding the progress made in\neach. But the second account spoke of \"THE DAY\" in which \"the Lord God\nmade the earth and the heavens.\" The explicitness of the first account\nand its naturalness to the minds of the great mass of early theologians\ngave it at first a decided advantage; but Jewish thinkers, like Philo,\nand Christian thinkers, like Origen, forming higher conceptions of\nthe Creator and his work, were not content with this, and by them was\nlaunched upon the troubled sea of Christian theology the idea that the\ncreation was instantaneous, this idea being strengthened not only by the\nsecond of the Genesis legends, but by the great text, \"He spake, and\nit was done; he commanded, and it stood fast\"--or, as it appears in\nthe Vulgate and in most translations, \"He spake, and they were made; he\ncommanded, and they were created.\"\n\nAs a result, it began to be held that the safe and proper course was to\nbelieve literally BOTH statements; that in some mysterious manner God\ncreated the universe in six days, and yet brought it all into existence\nin a moment. In spite of the outcries of sundry great theologians,\nlike Ephrem Syrus, that the universe was created in exactly six days of\ntwenty-four hours each, this compromise was promoted by St. Athanasius\nand St. Basil in the East, and by St. Augustine and St. Hilary in the\nWest.\n\nSerious difficulties were found in reconciling these two views, which\nto the natural mind seem absolutely contradictory; but by ingenious\nmanipulation of texts, by dexterous play upon phrases, and by the\nabundant use of metaphysics to dissolve away facts, a reconciliation\nwas effected, and men came at least to believe that they believed in\na creation of the universe instantaneous and at the same time extended\nthrough six days.(4)\n\n\n     (4) For Origen, see his Contra Celsum, cap xxxvi, xxxvii; also his\nDe Principibus, cap. v; for St. Augustine, see his De Genesi conta\nManichaeos and De Genesi ad Litteram, passim; for Athanasius, see his\nDiscourses against the Arians, ii, 48,49.\n\n\nSome of the efforts to reconcile these two accounts were so fruitful as\nto deserve especial record. The fathers, Eastern and Western, developed\nout of the double account in Genesis, and the indications in the Psalms,\nthe Proverbs, and the book of Job, a vast mass of sacred science bearing\nupon this point. As regards the whole work of creation, stress was laid\nupon certain occult powers in numerals. Philo Judaeus, while believing\nin an instantaneous creation, had also declared that the world was\ncreated in six days because \"of all numbers six is the most productive\";\nhe had explained the creation of the heavenly bodies on the fourth day\nby \"the harmony of the number four\"; of the animals on the fifth day\nby the five senses; of man on the sixth day by the same virtues in the\nnumber six which had caused it to be set as a limit to the creative\nwork; and, greatest of all, the rest on the seventh day by the vast mass\nof mysterious virtues in the number seven.\n\nSt. Jerome held that the reason why God did not pronounce the work of\nthe second day \"good\" is to be found in the fact that there is something\nessentially evil in the number two, and this was echoed centuries\nafterward, afar off in Britain, by Bede.\n\nSt. Augustine brought this view to bear upon the Church in the following\nstatement: \"There are three classes of numbers--the more than perfect,\nthe perfect, and the less than perfect, according as the sum of them\nis greater than, equal to, or less than the original number. Six is the\nfirst perfect number: wherefore we must not say that six is a perfect\nnumber because God finished all his works in six days, but that God\nfinished all his works in six days because six is a perfect number.\"\n\nReasoning of this sort echoed along through the mediaeval Church until\na year after the discovery of America, when the Nuremberg Chronicle\nre-echoed it as follows: \"The creation of things is explained by the\nnumber six, the parts of which, one, two, and three, assume the form of\na triangle.\"\n\nThis view of the creation of the universe as instantaneous and also as\nin six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, became virtually\nuniversal. Peter Lombard and Hugo of St. Victor, authorities of vast\nweight, gave it their sanction in the twelfth century, and impressed it\nfor ages upon the mind of the Church.\n\nBoth these lines of speculation--as to the creation of everything out\nof nothing, and the reconciling of the instantaneous creation of the\nuniverse with its creation in six days--were still further developed by\nother great thinkers of the Middle Ages.\n\nSt. Hilary of Poictiers reconciled the two conceptions as follows: \"For,\nalthough according to Moses there is an appearance of regular order\nin the fixing of the firmament, the laying bare of the dry land, the\ngathering together of the waters, the formation of the heavenly bodies,\nand the arising of living things from land and water, yet the creation\nof the heavens, earth, and other elements is seen to be the work of a\nsingle moment.\"\n\nSt. Thomas Aquinas drew from St. Augustine a subtle distinction which\nfor ages eased the difficulties in the case: he taught in effect that\nGod created the substance of things in a moment, but gave to the work of\nseparating, shaping, and adorning this creation, six days.(5)\n\n\n     (5) For Philo Judaeus, see his Creation of the World, chap. iii; for\nSt. Augustine on the powers of numbers in creation, see his De Genesi ad\nLitteram iv, chap. ii; for Peter Lombard, see the Sententiae, lib. ii,\ndist. xv, 5; and for Hugo of St. Victor, see De Sacrementis, lib i, pars\ni; also, Annotat, Elucidat in Pentateuchum, cap. v, vi, vii; for St.\nHilary, see De Trinitate, lib. xii; for St. Thomas Aquinas, see his\nSumma Theologica, quest lxxxiv, arts. i and ii; the passage in the\nNuremberg Chronicle, 1493, is in fol. iii; for Vousset, see his Discours\nsur l'Histoire Universelle; for the sacredness of the number seven among\nthe Babylonians, see especially Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das\nAlte Testament, pp. 21,22; also George Smith et al.; for general ideas\non the occult powers of various numbers, especially the number seven,\nand the influence of these ideas on theology and science, see my chapter\non astronomy. As to medieaval ideas on the same subject, see Detzel,\nChristliche Ikonographie, Frieburg, 1894, pp. 44 and following.\n\n\nThe early reformers accepted and developed the same view, and Luther\nespecially showed himself equal to the occasion. With his usual boldness\nhe declared, first, that Moses \"spoke properly and plainly, and neither\nallegorically nor figuratively,\" and that therefore \"the world with all\ncreatures was created in six days.\" And he then goes on to show how, by\na great miracle, the whole creation was also instantaneous.\n\nMelanchthon also insisted that the universe was created out of nothing\nand in a mysterious way, both in an instant and in six days, citing the\ntext: \"He spake, and they were made.\"\n\nCalvin opposed the idea of an instantaneous creation, and laid especial\nstress on the creation in six days: having called attention to the\nfact that the biblical chronology shows the world to be not quite\nsix thousand years old and that it is now near its end, he says that\n\"creation was extended through six days that it might not be tedious for\nus to occupy the whole of life in the consideration of it.\"\n\nPeter Martyr clinched the matter by declaring: \"So important is it to\ncomprehend the work of creation that we see the creed of the Church take\nthis as its starting point. Were this article taken away there would be\nno original sin, the promise of Christ would become void, and all the\nvital force of our religion would be destroyed.\" The Westminster divines\nin drawing up their Confession of Faith specially laid it down as\nnecessary to believe that all things visible and invisible were created\nnot only out of nothing but in exactly six days.\n\nNor were the Roman divines less strenuous than the Protestant reformers\nregarding the necessity of holding closely to the so-called Mosaic\naccount of creation. As late as the middle of the eighteenth century,\nwhen Buffon attempted to state simple geological truths, the theological\nfaculty of the Sorbonne forced him to make and to publish a most\nignominious recantation which ended with these words: \"I abandon\neverything in my book respecting the formation of the earth, and\ngenerally all which may be contrary to the narrative of Moses.\"\n\nTheologians, having thus settled the manner of the creation, the matter\nused in it, and the time required for it, now exerted themselves to fix\nits DATE.\n\nThe long series of efforts by the greatest minds in the Church, from\nEusebius to Archbishop Usher, to settle this point are presented in\nanother chapter. Suffice it here that the general conclusion arrived\nat by an overwhelming majority of the most competent students of the\nbiblical accounts was that the date of creation was, in round numbers,\nfour thousand years before our era; and in the seventeenth century, in\nhis great work, Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University\nof Cambridge, and one of the most eminent Hebrew scholars of his time,\ndeclared, as the result of his most profound and exhaustive study of\nthe Scriptures, that \"heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were\ncreated all together, in the same instant, and clouds full of water,\"\nand that \"this work took place and man was created by the Trinity on\nOctober 23, 4004 B. C., at nine o'clock in the morning.\"\n\nHere was, indeed, a triumph of Lactantius's method, the result of\nhundreds of years of biblical study and theological thought since Bede\nin the eighth century, and Vincent of Beauvais in the thirteenth, had\ndeclared that creation must have taken place in the spring. Yet, alas!\nwithin two centuries after Lightfoot's great biblical demonstration as\nto the exact hour of creation, it was discovered that at that hour\nan exceedingly cultivated people, enjoying all the fruits of a highly\ndeveloped civilization, had long been swarming in the great cities of\nEgypt, and that other nations hardly less advanced had at that time\nreached a high development in Asia.(6)\n\n\n     (6) For Luther, see his Commentary on Genesis, 1545, introduction,\nand his comments on chap. i, verse 12; the quotations from Luther's\ncommentary are taken mainly from the translation by Henry Cole, D.D.,\nEdinburgh, 1858; for Melanchthon, see Loci Theologici, in Melanchthon,\nOpera, ed. Bretschneider, vol. xxi, pp. 269, 270, also pp. 637, 638--in\nquoting the text (Ps. xxiii, 9) I have used, as does Melanchthon\nhimself, the form of the Vulgate; for the citations from Calvin, see his\nCommentary on Genesis (Opera omnia, Amsterdam, 1671, tom. i, cap. ii, p.\n8); also in the Institutes, Allen's translation, London, 1838, vol.\ni, chap. xv, pp. 126,127; for the Peter Martyr, see his Commentary\non Genesis, cited by Zockler, vol. i, p. 690; for articles in the\nWestminster Confession of Faith, see chap. iv; for Buffon's recantation,\nsee Lyell, Principles of Geology, chap iii, p. 57. For Lightfoot's\ndeclaration, see his works, edited by Pitman, London, 1822.\n\n\nBut, strange as it may seem, even after theologians had thus settled the\nmanner of creation, the matter employed in it, the time required for it,\nand the exact date of it, there remained virtually unsettled the\nfirst and greatest question of all; and this was nothing less than the\nquestion, WHO actually created the universe?\n\nVarious theories more or less nebulous, but all centred in texts of\nScripture, had swept through the mind of the Church. By some theologians\nit was held virtually that the actual creative agent was the third\nperson of the Trinity, who, in the opening words of our sublime creation\npoem, \"moved upon the face of the waters.\" By others it was held that\nthe actual Creator was the second person of the Trinity, in behalf of\nwhose agency many texts were cited from the New Testament. Others held\nthat the actual Creator was the first person, and this view was embodied\nin the two great formulas known as the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds,\nwhich explicitly assigned the work to \"God the Father Almighty, Maker of\nheaven and earth.\" Others, finding a deep meaning in the words \"Let US\nmake,\" ascribed in Genesis to the Creator, held that the entire Trinity\ndirectly created all things; and still others, by curious metaphysical\nprocesses, seemed to arrive at the idea that peculiar combinations of\ntwo persons of the Trinity achieved the creation.\n\nIn all this there would seem to be considerable courage in view of the\nfearful condemnations launched in the Athanasian Creed against all who\nshould \"confound the persons\" or \"divide the substance of the Trinity.\"\n\nThese various stages in the evolution of scholastic theology were\nalso embodied in sacred art, and especially in cathedral sculpture, in\nglass-staining, in mosaic working, and in missal painting.\n\nThe creative Being is thus represented sometimes as the third person of\nthe Trinity, in the form of a dove brooding over chaos; sometimes as the\nsecond person, and therefore a youth; sometimes as the first person,\nand therefore fatherly and venerable; sometimes as the first and second\npersons, one being venerable and the other youthful; and sometimes\nas three persons, one venerable and one youthful, both wearing papal\ncrowns, and each holding in his lips a tip of the wing of the dove,\nwhich thus seems to proceed from both and to be suspended between them.\n\nNor was this the most complete development of the medieval idea. The\nCreator was sometimes represented with a single body, but with three\nfaces, thus showing that Christian belief had in some pious minds gone\nthrough substantially the same cycle which an earlier form of belief had\nmade ages before in India, when the Supreme Being was represented with\none body but with the three faces of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva.\n\nBut at the beginning of the modern period the older view in its\nprimitive Jewish form was impressed upon Christians by the most mighty\ngenius in art the world has known; for in 1512, after four years of\nTitanic labour, Michael Angelo uncovered his frescoes within the vault\nof the Sistine Chapel.\n\nThey had been executed by the command and under the sanction of the\nruling Pope, Julius II, to represent the conception of Christian\ntheology then dominant, and they remain to-day in all their majesty\nto show the highest point ever attained by the older thought upon the\norigin of the visible universe.\n\nIn the midst of the expanse of heaven the Almighty Father--the first\nperson of the Trinity--in human form, august and venerable, attended by\nangels and upborne by mighty winds, sweeps over the abyss, and, moving\nthrough successive compartments of the great vault, accomplishes the\nwork of the creative days. With a simple gesture he divides the light\nfrom the darkness, rears on high the solid firmament, gathers together\nbeneath it the seas, or summons into existence the sun, moon, and\nplanets, and sets them circling about the earth.\n\nIn this sublime work culminated the thought of thousands of years; the\nstrongest minds accepted it or pretended to accept it, and nearly two\ncenturies later this conception, in accordance with the first of the\ntwo accounts given in Genesis, was especially enforced by Bossuet,\nand received a new lease of life in the Church, both Catholic and\nProtestant.(7)\n\n\n     (7) For strange representations of the Creator and of the creation by\none, two, or three persons of the Trinity, see Didron, Iconographie\nChretienne, pp. 35, 178, 224, 483, 567-580, and elsewhere; also Detzel\nas already cited. The most naive of all survivals of the mediaeval idea\nof creation which the present writer has ever seen was exhibited in\n1894 on the banner of one of the guilds at the celebration of the\nfour-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the Munich Cathedral.\nJesus of Nazareth, as a beautiful boy and with a nimbus encircling his\nhead, was shown turning and shaping the globe on a lathe, which he keeps\nin motion with his foot. The emblems of the Passion are about him,\nGod the Father looking approvingly upon him from a cloud, and the dove\nhovering between the two. The date upon the banner was 1727.\n\n\nBut to these discussions was added yet another, which, beginning in the\nearly days of the Church, was handed down the ages until it had died out\namong the theologians of our own time.\n\nIn the first of the biblical accounts light is created and the\ndistinction between day and night thereby made on the first day,\nwhile the sun and moon are not created until the fourth day. Masses of\nprofound theological and pseudo-scientific reasoning have been developed\nto account for this--masses so great that for ages they have obscured\nthe simple fact that the original text is a precious revelation to us of\none of the most ancient of recorded beliefs--the belief that light and\ndarkness are entities independent of the heavenly bodies, and that the\nsun, moon, and stars exist not merely to increase light but to \"divide\nthe day from the night, to be for signs and for seasons, and for days\nand for years,\" and \"to rule the day and the night.\"\n\nOf this belief we find survivals among the early fathers, and especially\nin St. Ambrose. In his work on creation he tells us: \"We must remember\nthat the light of day is one thing and the light of the sun, moon,\nand stars another--the sun by his rays appearing to add lustre to\nthe daylight. For before sunrise the day dawns, but is not in full\nrefulgence, for the sun adds still further to its splendour.\" This\nidea became one of the \"treasures of sacred knowledge committed to the\nChurch,\" and was faithfully received by the Middle Ages. The medieval\nmysteries and miracle plays give curious evidences of this: In a\nperformance of the creation, when God separates light from darkness, the\nstage direction is, \"Now a painted cloth is to be exhibited, one half\nblack and the other half white.\" It was also given more permanent form.\nIn the mosaics of San Marco at Venice, in the frescoes of the Baptistery\nat Florence and of the Church of St. Francis at Assisi, and in the altar\ncarving at Salerno, we find a striking realization of it--the Creator\nplacing in the heavens two disks or living figures of equal size, each\nsuitably coloured or inscribed to show that one represents light and the\nother darkness. This conception was without doubt that of the person or\npersons who compiled from the Chaldean and other earlier statements the\naccounts of the creation in the first of our sacred books.(8)\n\n\n     (8) For scriptural indications of the independent existence of light and\ndarkness, compare with the first verses of the chapter of Genesis such\npassages as Job xxxviii, 19,24; for the general prevalence of this early\nview, see Lukas, Kosmogonie, pp. 31, 33, 41, 74, and passim; for the\nview of St. Ambrose regarding the creation of light and of the sun, see\nhis Hexameron, lib. 4, cap. iii; for an excellent general statement,\nsee Huxley, Mr. Gladstone and Genesis, in the Nineteenth Century, 1886,\nreprinted in his Essays on Controverted Questions, London, 1892,\nnote, pp. 126 et seq.; for the acceptance in the miracle plays of the\nscriptural idea of light and darkness as independent creations, see\nWright, Essays on Archeological Subjects, vol. ii, p.178; for an\naccount, with illustrations, of the mosaics, etc., representing this\nidea, see Tikkanen, Die Genesis-mosaiken von San Marco, Helsingfors,\n1889, p. 14 and 16 of the text and Plates I and II. Very naively the\nSalerno carver, not wishing to colour the ivory which he wrought, has\ninscribed on one disk the word \"LUX\" and on the other \"NOX.\" See also\nDidron, Iconographie, p. 482.\n\n\nThus, down to a period almost within living memory, it was held,\nvirtually \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" that the universe, as we now\nsee it, was created literally and directly by the voice or hands of the\nAlmighty, or by both--out of nothing--in an instant or in six days, or\nin both--about four thousand years before the Christian era--and for the\nconvenience of the dwellers upon the earth, which was at the base and\nfoundation of the whole structure.\n\nBut there had been implanted along through the ages germs of another\ngrowth in human thinking, some of them even as early as the\nBabylonian period. In the Assyrian inscriptions we find recorded the\nChaldeo-Babylonian idea of AN EVOLUTION of the universe out of the\nprimeval flood or \"great deep,\" and of the animal creation out of the\nearth and sea. This idea, recast, partially at least, into monotheistic\nform, passed naturally into the sacred books of the neighbours and\npupils of the Chaldeans--the Hebrews; but its growth in Christendom\nafterward was checked, as we shall hereafter find, by the more powerful\ninfluence of other inherited statements which appealed more intelligibly\nto the mind of the Church.\n\nStriking, also, was the effect of this idea as rewrought by the early\nIonian philosophers, to whom it was probably transmitted from the\nChaldeans through the Phoenicians. In the minds of Ionians like\nAnaximander and Anaximenes it was most clearly developed: the first of\nthese conceiving of the visible universe as the result of processes of\nevolution, and the latter pressing further the same mode of reasoning,\nand dwelling on agencies in cosmic development recognised in modern\nscience.\n\nThis general idea of evolution in Nature thus took strong hold upon\nGreek thought and was developed in many ways, some ingenious, some\nperverse. Plato, indeed, withstood it; but Aristotle sometimes developed\nit in a manner which reminds us of modern views.\n\nAmong the Romans Lucretius caught much from it, extending the\nevolutionary process virtually to all things.\n\nIn the early Church, as we have seen, the idea of a creation direct,\nmaterial, and by means like those used by man, was all-powerful for the\nexclusion of conceptions based on evolution. From the more simple and\ncrude of the views of creation given in the Babylonian legends, and\nthence incorporated into Genesis, rose the stream of orthodox thought\non the subject, which grew into a flood and swept on through the Middle\nAges and into modern times. Yet here and there in the midst of this\nflood were high grounds of thought held by strong men. Scotus Erigena\nand Duns Scotus, among the schoolmen, bewildered though they were,\nhad caught some rays of this ancient light, and passed on to their\nsuccessors, in modified form, doctrines of an evolutionary process in\nthe universe.\n\nIn the latter half of the sixteenth century these evolutionary theories\nseemed to take more definite form in the mind of Giordano Bruno, who\nevidently divined the fundamental idea of what is now known as the\n\"nebular hypothesis\"; but with his murder by the Inquisition at Rome\nthis idea seemed utterly to disappear--dissipated by the flames which in\n1600 consumed his body on the Campo dei Fiori.\n\nYet within the two centuries divided by Bruno's death the world was led\ninto a new realm of thought in which an evolution theory of the visible\nuniverse was sure to be rapidly developed. For there came, one after\nthe other, five of the greatest men our race has produced--Copernicus,\nKepler, Galileo, Descartes, and Newton--and when their work was done\nthe old theological conception of the universe was gone. \"The spacious\nfirmament on high\"--\"the crystalline spheres\"--the Almighty enthroned\nupon \"the circle of the heavens,\" and with his own lands, or with angels\nas his agents, keeping sun, moon, and planets in motion for the benefit\nof the earth, opening and closing the \"windows of heaven,\" letting down\nupon the earth the \"waters above the firmament,\" \"setting his bow in the\ncloud,\" hanging out \"signs and wonders,\" hurling comets, \"casting forth\nlightnings\" to scare the wicked, and \"shaking the earth\" in his wrath:\nall this had disappeared.\n\nThese five men had given a new divine revelation to the world; and\nthrough the last, Newton, had come a vast new conception, destined to\nbe fatal to the old theory of creation, for he had shown throughout the\nuniverse, in place of almighty caprice, all-pervading law. The bitter\nopposition of theology to the first four of these men is well known;\nbut the fact is not so widely known that Newton, in spite of his deeply\nreligious spirit, was also strongly opposed. It was vigorously urged\nagainst him that by his statement of the law of gravitation he \"took\nfrom God that direct action on his works so constantly ascribed to him\nin Scripture and transferred it to material mechanism,\" and that he\n\"substituted gravitation for Providence.\"\n\nBut, more than this, these men gave a new basis for the theory of\nevolution as distinguished from the theory of creation.\n\nEspecially worthy of note is it that the great work of Descartes,\nerroneous as many of its deductions were, and, in view of the lack of\nphysical knowledge in his time, must be, had done much to weaken the\nold conception. His theory of a universe brought out of all-pervading\nmatter, wrought into orderly arrangement by movements in accordance with\nphysical laws--though it was but a provisional hypothesis--had done much\nto draw men's minds from the old theological view of creation; it was an\nexample of intellectual honesty arriving at errors, but thereby aiding\nthe advent of truths. Crippled though Descartes was by his almost\nmorbid fear of the Church, this part of his work was no small factor\nin bringing in that attitude of mind which led to a reception of the\nthoughts of more unfettered thinkers.\n\nThirty years later came, in England, an effort of a different sort, but\nwith a similar result. In 1678 Ralph Cudworth published his Intellectual\nSystem of the Universe. To this day he remains, in breadth of\nscholarship, in strength of thought, in tolerance, and in honesty, one\nof the greatest glories of the English Church, and his work was\nworthy of him. He purposed to build a fortress which should protect\nChristianity against all dangerous theories of the universe, ancient\nor modern. The foundations of the structure were laid with old thoughts\nthrown often into new and striking forms; but, as the superstructure\narose more and more into view, while genius marked every part of it,\nfeatures appeared which gave the rigidly orthodox serious misgivings.\nFrom the old theories of direct personal action on the universe by the\nAlmighty he broke utterly. He dwelt on the action of law, rejected the\ncontinuous exercise of miraculous intervention, pointed out the fact\nthat in the natural world there are \"errors\" and \"bungles,\" and argued\nvigorously in favour of the origin and maintenance of the universe as\na slow and gradual development of Nature in obedience to an inward\nprinciple. The Balaks of seventeenth-century orthodoxy might well\ncondemn this honest Balaam.\n\nToward the end of the next century a still more profound genius,\nImmanuel Kant, presented the nebular theory, giving it, in the light of\nNewton's great utterances, a consistency which it never before had; and\nabout the same time Laplace gave it yet greater strength by mathematical\nreasonings of wonderful power and extent, thus implanting firmly in\nmodern thought the idea that our own solar system and others--suns,\nplanets, satellites, and their various movements, distances, and\nmagnitudes--necessarily result from the obedience of nebulous masses to\nnatural laws.\n\nThroughout the theological world there was an outcry at once against\n\"atheism,\" and war raged fiercely. Herschel and others pointed out\nmany nebulous patches apparently gaseous. They showed by physical and\nmathematical demonstrations that the hypothesis accounted for the great\nbody of facts, and, despite clamour, were gaining ground, when the\nimproved telescopes resolved some of the patches of nebulous matter\ninto multitudes of stars. The opponents of the nebular hypothesis were\noverjoyed; they now sang paeans to astronomy, because, as they said,\nit had proved the truth of Scripture. They had jumped to the conclusion\nthat all nebula must be alike; that, if SOME are made up of systems of\nstars, ALL must be so made up; that none can be masses of attenuated\ngaseous matter, because some are not.\n\nScience halted for a time. The accepted doctrine became this: that the\nonly reason why all the nebula are not resolved into distinct stars is\nthat our telescopes are not sufficiently powerful. But in time came\nthe discovery of the spectroscope and spectrum analysis, and thence\nFraunhofer's discovery that the spectrum of an ignited gaseous body is\nnon-continuous, with interrupting lines; and Draper's discovery that the\nspectrum of an ignited solid is continuous, with no interrupting lines.\nAnd now the spectroscope was turned upon the nebula, and many of them\nwere found to be gaseous. Here, then, was ground for the inference\nthat in these nebulous masses at different stages of condensation--some\napparently mere pitches of mist, some with luminous centres--we have the\nprocess of development actually going on, and observations like those of\nLord Rosse and Arrest gave yet further confirmation to this view. Then\ncame the great contribution of the nineteenth century to physics, aiding\nto explain important parts of the vast process by the mechanical theory\nof heat.\n\nAgain the nebular hypothesis came forth stronger than ever, and about\n1850 the beautiful experiment of Plateau on the rotation of a fluid\nglobe came in apparently to illustrate if not to confirm it. Even so\ndetermined a defender of orthodoxy as Mr. Gladstone at last acknowledged\nsome form of a nebular hypothesis as probably true.\n\nHere, too, was exhibited that form of surrendering theological views\nto science under the claim that science concurs with theology, which we\nhave seen in so many other fields; and, as typical, an example may\nbe given, which, however restricted in its scope, throws light on the\nprocess by which such surrenders are obtained. A few years since one of\nthe most noted professors of chemistry in the city of New York, under\nthe auspices of one of its most fashionable churches, gave a lecture\nwhich, as was claimed in the public prints and in placards posted in the\nstreets, was to show that science supports the theory of creation given\nin the sacred books ascribed to Moses. A large audience assembled, and\na brilliant series of elementary experiments with oxygen, hydrogen,\nand carbonic acid was concluded by the Plateau demonstration. It was\nbeautifully made. As the coloured globule of oil, representing the\nearth, was revolved in a transparent medium of equal density, as it\nbecame flattened at the poles, as rings then broke forth from it and\nrevolved about it, and, finally, as some of these rings broke into\nsatellites, which for a moment continued to circle about the central\nmass, the audience, as well they might, rose and burst into rapturous\napplause.\n\nThereupon a well-to-do citizen arose and moved the thanks of the\naudience to the eminent professor for \"this perfect demonstration of the\nexact and literal conformity of the statements given in Holy Scripture\nwith the latest results of science.\" The motion was carried unanimously\nand with applause, and the audience dispersed, feeling that a great\nservice had been rendered to orthodoxy. Sancta simplicitas!\n\nWhat this incident exhibited on a small scale has been seen elsewhere\nwith more distinguished actors and on a broader stage. Scores of\ntheologians, chief among whom of late, in zeal if not in knowledge, has\nbeen Mr. Gladstone, have endeavoured to \"reconcile\" the two accounts in\nGenesis with each other and with the truths regarding the origin of\nthe universe gained by astronomy, geology, geography, physics, and\nchemistry. The result has been recently stated by an eminent theologian,\nthe Hulsean Professor of Divinity at the University of Cambridge.\nHe declares, \"No attempt at reconciling genesis with the exacting\nrequirements of modern sciences has ever been known to succeed without\nentailing a degree of special pleading or forced interpretation to\nwhich, in such a question, we should be wise to have no recourse.\"(9)\n\n\n     (9) For an interesting reference to the outcry against Newton, see\nMcCosh, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, New York, 1890, pp. 103,\n104; for germs of an evolutionary view among the Babylonians, see George\nSmith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, New York, 1876, pp. 74, 75; for a\ngerm of the same thought in Lucretius, see his De Natura Rerum, lib.\nv, pp.187-194, 447-454; for Bruno's conjecture (in 1591), see Jevons,\nPrinciples of Science, London, 1874, vol. ii, p. 36; for Kant's\nstatement, see his Naturgeschichte des Himmels; for his part in the\nnebular hypothesis, see Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, vol. i,\np.266; for the value of Plateau's beautiful experiment, very cautiously\nestimated, see Jevons, vol. ii, p. 36; also Elisee Reclus, The Earth,\ntranslated by Woodward, vol. i, pp. 14-18, for an estimate still more\ncareful; for a general account of discoveries of the nature of nebulae\nby spectroscope, see Draper, Conflict between Religion and Science; for\na careful discussion regarding the spectra of solid, liquid, and gaseous\nbodies, see Schellen, Spectrum Analysis, pp. 100 et seq.; for a very\nthorough discussion of the bearings of discoveries made by spectrum\nanalysis upon the nebular hypothesis, ibid., pp. 532-537; for a\npresentation of the difficulties yet unsolved, see an article by Plummer\nin the London Popular Science Review for January, 1875; for an excellent\nshort summary of recent observations and thoughts on this subject, see\nT. Sterry Hunt, Address at the Priestley Centennial, pp. 7, 8; for an\ninteresting modification of this hypothesis, see Proctor's writings; for\na still more recent view see Lockyer's two articles on The Sun's Place\nin Nature for February 14 and 25, 1895.\n\n\nThe revelations of another group of sciences, though sometimes bitterly\nopposed and sometimes \"reconciled\" by theologians, have finally set\nthe whole question at rest. First, there have come the biblical\ncritics--earnest Christian scholars, working for the sake of truth--and\nthese have revealed beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt the\nexistence of at least two distinct accounts of creation in our book of\nGenesis, which can sometimes be forced to agree, but which are generally\nabsolutely at variance with each other. These scholars have further\nshown the two accounts to be not the cunningly devised fables of\npriestcraft, but evidently fragments of earlier legends, myths, and\ntheologies, accepted in good faith and brought together for the noblest\nof purposes by those who put in order the first of our sacred books.\n\nNext have come the archaeologists and philologists, the devoted students\nof ancient monuments and records; of these are such as Rawlinson, George\nSmith, Sayce, Oppert, Jensen, Schrader, Delitzsch, and a phalanx of\nsimilarly devoted scholars, who have deciphered a multitude of ancient\ntexts, especially the inscriptions found in the great library of\nAssurbanipal at Nineveh, and have discovered therein an account of the\norigin of the world identical in its most important features with the\nlater accounts in our own book of Genesis.\n\nThese men have had the courage to point out these facts and to connect\nthem with the truth that these Chaldean and Babylonian myths, legends,\nand theories were far earlier than those of the Hebrews, which so\nstrikingly resemble them, and which we have in our sacred books; and\nthey have also shown us how natural it was that the Jewish accounts of\nthe creation should have been obtained at that remote period when the\nearliest Hebrews were among the Chaldeans, and how the great Hebrew\npoetic accounts of creation were drawn either from the sacred traditions\nof these earlier peoples or from antecedent sources common to various\nancient nations.\n\nIn a summary which for profound thought and fearless integrity does\nhonour not only to himself but to the great position which he holds,\nthe Rev. Dr. Driver, Professor of Hebrew and Canon of Christ Church at\nOxford, has recently stated the case fully and fairly. Having pointed\nout the fact that the Hebrews were one people out of many who thought\nupon the origin of the universe, he says that they \"framed theories to\naccount for the beginnings of the earth and man\"; that \"they either did\nthis for themselves or borrowed those of their neighbours\"; that \"of the\ntheories current in Assyria and Phoenicia fragments have been preserved,\nand these exhibit points of resemblance with the biblical narrative\nsufficient to warrant the inference that both are derived from the same\ncycle of tradition.\"\n\nAfter giving some extracts from the Chaldean creation tablets he says:\n\"In the light of these facts it is difficult to resist the conclusion\nthat the biblical narrative is drawn from the same source as these other\nrecords. The biblical historians, it is plain, derived their materials\nfrom the best human sources available.... The materials which with other\nnations were combined into the crudest physical theories or associated\nwith a grotesque polytheism were vivified and transformed by the\ninspired genius of the Hebrew historians, and adapted to become the\nvehicle of profound religious truth.\"\n\nNot less honourable to the sister university and to himself is the\nstatement recently made by the Rev. Dr. Ryle, Hulsean Professor of\nDivinity at Cambridge. He says that to suppose that a Christian \"must\neither renounce his confidence in the achievements of scientific\nresearch or abandon his faith in Scripture is a monstrous perversion of\nChristian freedom.\" He declares: \"The old position is no longer tenable;\na new position has to be taken up at once, prayerfully chosen, and\nhopefully held.\" He then goes on to compare the Hebrew story of creation\nwith the earlier stories developed among kindred peoples, and especially\nwith the pre-existing Assyro-Babylonian cosmogony, and shows that they\nare from the same source. He points out that any attempt to explain\nparticular features of the story into harmony with the modern scientific\nideas necessitates \"a non-natural\" interpretation; but he says that, if\nwe adopt a natural interpretation, \"we shall consider that the Hebrew\ndescription of the visible universe is unscientific as judged by modern\nstandards, and that it shares the limitations of the imperfect knowledge\nof the age at which it was committed to writing.\" Regarding the account\nin Genesis of man's physical origin, he says that it \"is expressed\nin the simple terms of prehistoric legend, of unscientific pictorial\ndescription.\"\n\nIn these statements and in a multitude of others made by eminent\nChristian investigators in other countries is indicated what the victory\nis which has now been fully won over the older theology.\n\nThus, from the Assyrian researches as well as from other sources, it\nhas come to be acknowledged by the most eminent scholars at the leading\nseats of Christian learning that the accounts of creation with which\nfor nearly two thousand years all scientific discoveries have had to\nbe \"reconciled\"--the accounts which blocked the way of Copernicus, and\nGalileo, and Newton, and Laplace--were simply transcribed or evolved\nfrom a mass of myths and legends largely derived by the Hebrews from\ntheir ancient relations with Chaldea, rewrought in a monotheistic sense,\nimperfectly welded together, and then thrown into poetic forms in the\nsacred books which we have inherited.\n\nOn one hand, then, we have the various groups of men devoted to the\nphysical sciences all converging toward the proofs that the universe,\nas we at present know it, is the result of an evolutionary process--that\nis, of the gradual working of physical laws upon an early condition of\nmatter; on the other hand, we have other great groups of men devoted to\nhistorical, philological, and archaeological science whose researches\nall converge toward the conclusion that our sacred accounts of creation\nwere the result of an evolution from an early chaos of rude opinion.\n\nThe great body of theologians who have so long resisted the conclusions\nof the men of science have claimed to be fighting especially for \"the\ntruth of Scripture,\" and their final answer to the simple conclusions\nof science regarding the evolution of the material universe has been the\ncry, \"The Bible is true.\" And they are right--though in a sense nobler\nthan they have dreamed. Science, while conquering them, has found in our\nScriptures a far nobler truth than that literal historical exactness for\nwhich theologians have so long and so vainly contended. More and more\nas we consider the results of the long struggle in this field we are\nbrought to the conclusion that the inestimable value of the great sacred\nbooks of the world is found in their revelation of the steady striving\nof our race after higher conceptions, beliefs, and aspirations, both\nin morals and religion. Unfolding and exhibiting this long-continued\neffort, each of the great sacred books of the world is precious, and\nall, in the highest sense, are true. Not one of them, indeed, conforms\nto the measure of what mankind has now reached in historical and\nscientific truth; to make a claim to such conformity is folly, for it\nsimply exposes those who make it and the books for which it is made to\nloss of their just influence.\n\nThat to which the great sacred books of the world conform, and our own\nmost of all, is the evolution of the highest conceptions, beliefs,\nand aspirations of our race from its childhood through the great\nturning-points in its history. Herein lies the truth of all bibles, and\nespecially of our own. Of vast value they indeed often are as a record\nof historical outward fact; recent researches in the East are constantly\nincreasing this value; but it is not for this that we prize them most:\nthey are eminently precious, not as a record of outward fact, but as\na mirror of the evolving heart, mind, and soul of man. They are true\nbecause they have been developed in accordance with the laws governing\nthe evolution of truth in human history, and because in poem, chronicle,\ncode, legend, myth, apologue, or parable they reflect this development\nof what is best in the onward march of humanity. To say that they are\nnot true is as if one should say that a flower or a tree or a planet is\nnot true; to scoff at them is to scoff at the law of the universe. In\nwelding together into noble form, whether in the book of Genesis, or in\nthe Psalms, or in the book of Job, or elsewhere, the great conceptions\nof men acting under earlier inspiration, whether in Egypt, or Chaldea,\nor India, or Persia, the compilers of our sacred books have given to\nhumanity a possession ever becoming more and more precious; and modern\nscience, in substituting a new heaven and a new earth for the old--the\nreign of law for the reign of caprice, and the idea of evolution for\nthat of creation--has added and is steadily adding a new revelation\ndivinely inspired.\n\nIn the light of these two evolutions, then--one of the visible universe,\nthe other of a sacred creation-legend--science and theology, if the\nmaster minds in both are wise, may at last be reconciled. A great\nstep in this reconciliation was recently seen at the main centre\nof theological thought among English-speaking people, when, in the\ncollection of essays entitled Lux Mundi, emanating from the college\nestablished in these latter days as a fortress of orthodoxy at Oxford,\nthe legendary character of the creation accounts in our sacred books was\nacknowledged, and when the Archbishop of Canterbury asked, \"May not the\nHoly Spirit at times have made use of myth and legend?\"(10)\n\n\n     (10) For the first citations above made, see The Cosmogony of Genesis,\nby the Rev. S. R. Driver, D.D., Canon of Christ Church and Regius\nProfessor of Hebrew at Oxford, in the Expositor for January, 1886; for\nthe second series of citations, see the Early Narratives of Genesis, by\nHerbert Edward Ryle, Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, London,\n1892. For evidence that even the stiffest of Scotch Presbyterians have\ncome to discard the old literal biblical narrative of creation and\nto regard the declaration of the Westminster Confession thereon as\na \"disproved theory of creation,\" see Principal John Tulloch,\nin Contemporary Review, March, 1877, on Religious Thought in\nScotland--especially page 550.\n\n\n\n\nII. THEOLOGICAL TEACHINGS REGARDING THE ANIMALS AND MAN.\n\nIn one of the windows of the cathedral at Ulm a mediaeval glass-stainer\nhas represented the Almighty as busily engaged in creating the animals,\nand there has just left the divine hands an elephant fully\naccoutred, with armour, harness, and housings, ready-for war. Similar\nrepresentations appear in illuminated manuscripts and even in early\nprinted books, and, as the culmination of the whole, the Almighty is\nshown as fashioning the first man from a hillock of clay and extracting\nfrom his side, with evident effort, the first woman.\n\nThis view of the general process of creation had come from far,\nappearing under varying forms in various ancient cosmogonies. In\nthe Egyptian temples at Philae and Denderah may still be seen\nrepresentations of the Nile gods modelling lumps of clay into men, and\na similar work is ascribed in the Assyrian tablets to the gods of\nBabylonia. Passing into our own sacred books, these ideas became the\nstarting point of a vast new development of theology.(11)\n\n\n     (11) For representations of Egyptian gods creating men out of lumps\nof clay, see Maspero and Sayce, The Dawn of History, p. 156; for the\nChaldean legends of the creation of men and animals, see ibid., p. 543;\nsee also George Smith, Chaldean Accounts of Genesis, Sayce's edition,\npp. 36, 72, and 93; also for similar legends in other ancient nations,\nLenormant, Origines de l'Histoire, pp. 17 et seq.; for mediaeval\nrepresentations of the creation of man and woman, see Didron,\nIconographie, pp. 35, 178, 224, 537.\n\n\nThe fathers of the Church generally received each of the two conflicting\ncreation legends in Genesis literally, and then, having done their best\nto reconcile them with each other and to mould them together, made them\nthe final test of thought upon the universe and all things therein. At\nthe beginning of the fourth century Lactantius struck the key-note of\nthis mode of subordinating all other things in the study of creation to\nthe literal text of Scripture, and he enforces his view of the creation\nof man by a bit of philology, saying the final being created \"is called\nman because he is made from the ground--homo ex humo.\"\n\nIn the second half of the same century this view as to the literal\nacceptance of the sacred text was reasserted by St. Ambrose, who, in his\nwork on the creation, declared that \"Moses opened his mouth and poured\nforth what God had said to him.\" But a greater than either of them\nfastened this idea into the Christian theologies. St. Augustine,\npreparing his Commentary on the Book of Genesis, laid down in one famous\nsentence the law which has lasted in the Church until our own time:\n\"Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of Scripture, since\ngreater is that authority than all the powers of the human mind.\" The\nvigour of the sentence in its original Latin carried it ringing down the\ncenturies: \"Major est Scripturae auctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii\ncapacitas.\"\n\nThrough the mediaeval period, in spite of a revolt led by no other\nthan St. Augustine himself, and followed by a series of influential\nchurchmen, contending, as we shall hereafter see, for a modification of\nthe accepted view of creation, this phrase held the minds of men firmly.\nThe great Dominican encyclopaedist, Vincent of Beauvais, in his Mirror\nof Nature, while mixing ideas brought from Aristotle with a theory\ndrawn from the Bible, stood firmly by the first of the accounts given in\nGenesis, and assigned the special virtue of the number six as a reason\nwhy all things were created in six days; and in the later Middle Ages\nthat eminent authority, Cardinal d' Ailly, accepted everything regarding\ncreation in the sacred books literally. Only a faint dissent is seen\nin Gregory Reisch, another authority of this later period, who, while\ngiving, in his book on the beginning of things, a full length woodcut\nshowing the Almighty in the act of extracting Eve from Adam's side,\nwith all the rest of new-formed Nature in the background, leans in his\nwritings, like St. Augustine, toward a belief in the pre-existence of\nmatter.\n\nAt the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour\nof the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural\nscience. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier\ntheologians he utterly rejected. \"Why,\" he asks, \"should Moses use\nallegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an\nallegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which\ncan be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names,\nas we ought to do.... I hold that the animals took their being at once\nupon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea.\"\n\nNot less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation\ngiven in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view\nthan his own, \"basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will\nannihilate them.\" He insists that all species of animals were created\nin six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new\nspecies has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds\nfrom the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds,\n\"If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that\nwater is more akin to air than the earth is.\" As to difficulties in the\nscriptural account of creation, he tells us that God \"wished by these to\ngive proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment.\"\n\nThe controlling minds in the Roman Church steadfastly held this view. In\nthe seventeenth century Bossuet threw his vast authority in its favour,\nand in his Discourse on Universal History, which has remained the\nfoundation not only of theological but of general historical teaching\nin France down to the present republic, we find him calling attention to\nwhat he regards as the culminating act of creation, and asserting that,\nliterally, for the creation of man earth was used, and \"the finger of\nGod applied to corruptible matter.\"\n\nThe Protestant world held this idea no less persistently. In the\nseventeenth century Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the\nUniversity of Cambridge, the great rabbinical scholar of his time,\nattempted to reconcile the two main legends in Genesis by saying that of\nthe \"clean sort of beasts there were seven of every kind created, three\ncouples for breeding and the odd one for Adam's sacrifice on his fall,\nwhich God foresaw\"; and that of unclean beasts only one couple was\ncreated.\n\nSo literal was this whole conception of the work of creation that in\nthese days it can scarcely be imagined. The Almighty was represented\nin theological literature, in the pictured Bibles, and in works of art\ngenerally, as a sort of enlarged and venerable Nuremberg toymaker. At\ntimes the accounts in Genesis were illustrated with even more literal\nexactness; thus, in connection with a well-known passage in the sacred\ntext, the Creator was shown as a tailor, seated, needle in hand,\ndiligently sewing together skins of beasts into coats for Adam and Eve.\nSuch representations presented no difficulties to the docile minds of\nthe Middle Ages and the Reformation period; and in the same spirit, when\nthe discovery of fossils began to provoke thought, these were declared\nto be \"models of his works approved or rejected by the great Artificer,\"\n\"outlines of future creations,\" \"sports of Nature,\" or \"objects placed\nin the strata to bring to naught human curiosity\"; and this kind of\nexplanation lingered on until in our own time an eminent naturalist,\nin his anxiety to save the literal account in Genesis, has urged that\nJehovah tilted and twisted the strata, scattered the fossils through\nthem, scratched the glacial furrows upon them, spread over them\nthe marks of erosion by water, and set Niagara pouring--all in an\ninstant--thus mystifying the world \"for some inscrutable purpose, but\nfor his own glory.\"(12)\n\n\n     (12) For the citation from Lactantius, see Divin. Instit., lib. ii, cap.\nxi, in Migne, tome vi, pp. 311, 312; for St. Augustine's great phrase,\nsee the De Genes. ad litt., ii, 5; for St. Ambrose, see lib. i, cap. ii;\nfor Vincent of Beauvais, see the Speculum Naturale, lib. i, cap. ii, and\nlib. ii, cap. xv and xxx; also Bourgeat, Etudes sur Vincent de Beauvais,\nParis, 1856, especially chaps. vii, xii, and xvi; for Cardinal d\"ailly,\nsee the Imago Mundi, and for Reisch, see the various editions of the\nMargarita Philosophica; for Luther's statements, see Luther's Schriften,\ned. Walch, Halle, 1740, Commentary on Genesis, vol. i; for Calvin's view\nof the creation of the animals, including the immutability of Species,\nsee the Comm. in Gen., tome i of his Opera omnia, Amst., 1671, cap. i,\nv, xx, p. 5, also cap. ii, v, ii, p. 8, and elsewhere; for Bossuet, see\nhis Discours sur l'Histoire universelle (in his OEuvres, tome v, Paris,\n1846); for Lightfoot, see his works, edited by Pitman, London, 1822;\nfor Bede, see the Hexaemeron, lib. i, in Migne, tome xci, p.21; for Mr.\nGosse'smodern defence of the literal view, see his Omphalos, London,\n1857, passim.\n\n\nThe next important development of theological reasoning had regard to\nthe DIVISIONS of the animal kingdom.\n\nNaturally, one of the first divisions which struck the inquiring\nmind was that between useful and noxious creatures, and the question\ntherefore occurred, How could a good God create tigers and serpents,\nthorns and thistles? The answer was found in theological considerations\nupon SIN. To man's first disobedience all woes were due. Great men\nfor eighteen hundred years developed the theory that before Adam's\ndisobedience there was no death, and therefore neither ferocity nor\nvenom.\n\nSome typical utterances in the evolution of this doctrine are worthy of\na passing glance. St. Augustine expressly confirmed and emphasized the\nview that the vegetable as well as the animal kingdom was cursed on\naccount of man's sin. Two hundred years later this utterance had been\nechoed on from father to father of the Church until it was caught by\nBede; he declared that before man's fall animals were harmless, but were\nmade poisonous or hurtful by Adam's sin, and he said, \"Thus fierce and\npoisonous animals were created for terrifying man (because God foresaw\nthat he would sin), in order that he might be made aware of the final\npunishment of hell.\"\n\nIn the twelfth century this view was incorporated by Peter Lombard into\nhis great theological work, the Sentences, which became a text-book of\ntheology through the middle ages. He affirmed that \"no created things\nwould have been hurtful to man had he not sinned; they became hurtful\nfor the sake of terrifying and punishing vice or of proving and\nperfecting virtue; they were created harmless, and on account of sin\nbecame hurtful.\"\n\nThis theological theory regarding animals was brought out in the\neighteenth century with great force by John Wesley. He declared that\nbefore Adam's sin \"none of these attempted to devour or in any wise hurt\none another\"; \"the spider was as harmless as the fly, and did not lie\nin wait for blood.\" Not only Wesley, but the eminent Dr. Adam Clarke and\nDr. Richard Watson, whose ideas had the very greatest weight among the\nEnglish Dissenters, and even among leading thinkers in the Established\nChurch, held firmly to this theory; so that not until, in our own\ntime, geology revealed the remains of vast multitudes of carnivorous\ncreatures, many of them with half-digested remains of other animals in\ntheir stomachs, all extinct long ages before the appearance of man upon\nearth, was a victory won by science over theology in this field.\n\nA curious development of this doctrine was seen in the belief drawn\nby sundry old commentators from the condemnation of the serpent in\nGenesis--a belief, indeed, perfectly natural, since it was evidently\nthat of the original writers of the account preserved in the first of\nour sacred books. This belief was that, until the tempting serpent was\ncursed by the Almighty, all serpents stood erect, walked, and talked.\n\nThis belief was handed down the ages as part of \"the sacred deposit of\nthe faith\" until Watson, the most prolific writer of the evangelical\nreform in the eighteenth century and the standard theologian of the\nevangelical party, declared: \"We have no reason at all to believe\nthat the animal had a serpentine form in any mode or degree until its\ntransformation; that he was then degraded to a reptile to go upon his\nbelly imports, on the contrary, an entire loss and alteration of the\noriginal form.\" Here, again, was a ripe result of the theologic method\ndiligently pursued by the strongest thinkers in the Church during nearly\ntwo thousand years; but this \"sacred deposit\" also faded away when the\ngeologists found abundant remains of fossil serpents dating from periods\nlong before the appearance of man.\n\nTroublesome questions also arose among theologians regarding animals\nclassed as \"superfluous.\" St. Augustine was especially exercised\nthereby. He says: \"I confess I am ignorant why mice and frogs were\ncreated, or flies and worms.... All creatures are either useful, hurtful,\nor superfluous to us.... As for the hurtful creatures, we are either\npunished, or disciplined, or terrified by them, so that we may not\ncherish and love this life.\" As to the \"superfluous animals,\" he says,\n\"Although they are not necessary for our service, yet the whole design\nof the universe is thereby completed and finished.\" Luther, who followed\nSt. Augustine in so many other matters, declined to follow him fully in\nthis. To him a fly was not merely superfluous, it was noxious--sent by\nthe devil to vex him when reading.\n\nAnother subject which gave rise to much searching of Scripture and long\ntrains of theological reasoning was the difference between the creation\nof man and that of other living beings.\n\nGreat stress was laid by theologians, from St. Basil and St. Augustine\nto St. Thomas Aquinas and Bossuet, and from Luther to Wesley, on the\nradical distinction indicated in Genesis, God having created man \"in his\nown image.\" What this statement meant was seen in the light of the later\nbiblical statement that \"Adam begat Seth in his own likeness, after his\nimage.\"\n\nIn view of this and of well-known texts incorporated from older creation\nlegends into the Hebrew sacred books it came to be widely held that,\nwhile man was directly moulded and fashioned separately by the Creator's\nhand, the animals generally were evoked in numbers from the earth and\nsea by the Creator's voice.\n\nA question now arose naturally as to the DISTINCTIONS OF SPECIES among\nanimals. The vast majority of theologians agreed in representing all\nanimals as created \"in the beginning,\" and named by Adam, preserved in\nthe ark, and continued ever afterward under exactly the same species.\nThis belief ripened into a dogma. Like so many other dogmas in the\nChurch, Catholic and Protestant, its real origins are to be found rather\nin pagan philosophy than in the Christian Scriptures; it came far more\nfrom Plato and Aristotle than from Moses and St. Paul. But this was not\nconsidered: more and more it became necessary to believe that each\nand every difference of species was impressed by the Creator \"in the\nbeginning,\" and that no change had taken place or could have taken place\nsince.\n\nSome difficulties arose here and there as zoology progressed and\nrevealed ever-increasing numbers of species; but through the Middle\nAges, and indeed long after the Reformation, these difficulties were\neasily surmounted by making the ark of Noah larger and larger, and\nespecially by holding that there had been a human error in regard to its\nmeasurement.(13)\n\n\n     (13) For St. Augustine, see De Genesis and De Trinitate, passim; for\nBede, see Hexaemeron, lib. i, in Migne, tome xci, pp. 21, 36-38, 42; and\nDe Sex Dierum Criatione, in Migne, tome xciii, p. 215; for Peter Lombard\non \"noxious animals,\" see his Sententiae, lib. ii, dist. xv, 3, Migne,\ntome cxcii, p. 682; for Wesley, Clarke, and Watson, see quotations from\nthem and notes thereto in my chapter on Geology; for St. Augustine\non \"superfluous animals,\" see the De Genesi, lib. i, cap. xvi, 26; on\nLuther's view of flies, see the Table Talk and his famous utterance,\n\"Odio muscas quia sunt imagines diaboli et hoereticorum\"; for the agency\nof Aristotle and Plato in fastening the belief in the fixity of species\ninto Christian theology, see Sachs, Geschichte der Botanik, Munchen,\n1875, p. 107 and note, also p. 113.\n\n\nBut naturally there was developed among both ecclesiastics and laymen\na human desire to go beyond these special points in the history of\nanimated beings--a desire to know what the creation really IS.\n\nCurrent legends, stories, and travellers' observations, poor as they\nwere, tended powerfully to stimulate curiosity in this field.\n\nThree centuries before the Christian era Aristotle had made the\nfirst really great attempt to satisfy this curiosity, and had begun\na development of studies in natural history which remains one of the\nleading achievements in the story of our race.\n\nBut the feeling which we have already seen so strong in the early\nChurch--that all study of Nature was futile in view of the approaching\nend of the world--indicated so clearly in the New Testament and voiced\nso powerfully by Lactantius and St. Augustine--held back this current\nof thought for many centuries. Still, the better tendency in humanity\ncontinued to assert itself. There was, indeed, an influence coming from\nthe Hebrew Scriptures themselves which wrought powerfully to this end;\nfor, in spite of all that Lactantius or St. Augustine might say as to\nthe futility of any study of Nature, the grand utterances in the Psalms\nregarding the beauties and wonders of creation, in all the glow of the\ntruest poetry, ennobled the study even among those whom logic drew away\nfrom it.\n\nBut, as a matter of course, in the early Church and throughout the\nMiddle Ages all such studies were cast in a theologic mould. Without\nsome purpose of biblical illustration or spiritual edification they were\nconsidered futile too much prying into the secrets of Nature was very\ngenerally held to be dangerous both to body and soul; only for showing\nforth God's glory and his purposes in the creation were such studies\npraiseworthy. The great work of Aristotle was under eclipse. The early\nChristian thinkers gave little attention to it, and that little was\ndevoted to transforming it into something absolutely opposed to his\nwhole spirit and method; in place of it they developed the Physiologus\nand the Bestiaries, mingling scriptural statements, legends of the\nsaints, and fanciful inventions with pious intent and childlike\nsimplicity. In place of research came authority--the authority of the\nScriptures as interpreted by the Physio Cogus and the Bestiaries--and\nthese remained the principal source of thought on animated Nature for\nover a thousand years.\n\nOccasionally, indeed, fear was shown among the rulers in the Church,\neven at such poor prying into the creation as this, and in the fifth\ncentury a synod under Pope Gelasius administered a rebuke to the\nPhysiologus; but the interest in Nature was too strong: the great\nwork on Creation by St. Basil had drawn from the Physiologus precious\nillustrations of Holy Writ, and the strongest of the early popes,\nGregory the Great, virtually sanctioned it.\n\nThus was developed a sacred science of creation and of the divine\npurpose in Nature, which went on developing from the fourth century to\nthe nineteenth--from St. Basil to St. Isidore of Seville, from Isidore\nto Vincent of Beauvais, and from Vincent to Archdeacon Paley and the\nBridgewater Treatises.\n\nLike all else in the Middle Ages, this sacred science was developed\npurely by theological methods. Neglecting the wonders which the\ndissection of the commonest animals would have afforded them, these\nnaturalists attempted to throw light into Nature by ingenious use of\nscriptural texts, by research among the lives of the saints, and by the\nplentiful application of metaphysics. Hence even such strong men as\nSt. Isidore of Seville treasured up accounts of the unicorn and dragons\nmentioned in the Scriptures and of the phoenix and basilisk in profane\nwritings. Hence such contributions to knowledge as that the basilisk\nkills serpents by his breath and men by his glance, that the lion when\npursued effaces his tracks with the end of his tail, that the pelican\nnourishes her young with her own blood, that serpents lay aside their\nvenom before drinking, that the salamander quenches fire, that the hyena\ncan talk with shepherds, that certain birds are born of the fruit of a\ncertain tree when it happens to fall into the water, with other masses\nof science equally valuable.\n\nAs to the method of bringing science to bear on Scripture, the\nPhysiologus gives an example, illustrating the passage in the book of\nJob which speaks of the old lion perishing for lack of prey. Out of\nthe attempt to explain an unusual Hebrew word in the text there came a\ncurious development of error, until we find fully evolved an account of\nthe \"ant-lion,\" which, it gives us to understand, was the lion mentioned\nby Job, and it says: \"As to the ant-lion, his father hath the shape of\na lion, his mother that of an ant; the father liveth upon flesh and the\nmother upon herbs; these bring forth the ant-lion, a compound of both\nand in part like to either; for his fore part is like that of a lion and\nhis hind part like that of an ant. Being thus composed, he is neither\nable to eat flesh like his father nor herbs like his mother, and so he\nperisheth.\"\n\nIn the middle of the thirteenth century we have a triumph of this\ntheological method in the great work of the English Franciscan\nBartholomew on The Properties of Things. The theological method as\napplied to science consists largely in accepting tradition and in\nspinning arguments to fit it. In this field Bartholomew was a master.\nHaving begun with the intent mainly to explain the allusions in\nScripture to natural objects, he soon rises logically into a survey of\nall Nature. Discussing the \"cockatrice\" of Scripture, he tells us: \"He\ndrieth and burneth leaves with his touch, and he is of so great venom\nand perilous that he slayeth and wasteth him that nigheth him without\ntarrying; and yet the weasel overcometh him, for the biting of the\nweasel is death to the cockatrice. Nevertheless the biting of the\ncockatrice is death to the weasel if the weasel eat not rue before. And\nthough the cockatrice be venomous without remedy while he is alive,\nyet he looseth all the malice when he is burnt to ashes. His ashes be\naccounted profitable in working of alchemy, and namely in turning and\nchanging of metals.\"\n\nBartholomew also enlightens us on the animals of Egypt, and says, \"If\nthe crocodile findeth a man by the water's brim he slayeth him, and then\nhe weepeth over him and swalloweth him.\"\n\nNaturally this good Franciscan naturalist devotes much thought to the\n\"dragons\" mentioned in Scripture. He says: \"The dragon is most greatest\nof all serpents, and oft he is drawn out of his den and riseth up into\nthe air, and the air is moved by him, and also the sea swelleth against\nhis venom, and he hath a crest, and reareth his tongue, and hath teeth\nlike a saw, and hath strength, and not only in teeth but in tail, and\ngrieveth with biting and with stinging. Whom he findeth he slayeth.\nOft four or five of them fasten their tails together and rear up their\nheads, and sail over the sea to get good meat. Between elephants and\ndragons is everlasting fighting; for the dragon with his tail spanneth\nthe elephant, and the elephant with his nose throweth down the\ndragon.... The cause why the dragon desireth his blood is the coldness\nthereof, by the which the dragon desireth to cool himself. Jerome saith\nthat the dragon is a full thirsty beast, insomuch that he openeth his\nmouth against the wind to quench the burning of his thirst in that wise.\nTherefore, when he seeth ships in great wind he flieth against the sail\nto take the cold wind, and overthroweth the ship.\"\n\nThese ideas of Friar Bartholomew spread far and struck deep into the\npopular mind. His book was translated into the principal languages of\nEurope, and was one of those most generally read during the Ages of\nFaith. It maintained its position nearly three hundred years; even after\nthe invention of printing it held its own, and in the fifteenth century\nthere were issued no less than ten editions of it in Latin, four in\nFrench, and various versions of it in Dutch, Spanish, and English.\nPreachers found it especially useful in illustrating the ways of God\nto man. It was only when the great voyages of discovery substituted\nascertained fact for theological reasoning in this province that its\nauthority was broken.\n\nThe same sort of science flourished in the Bestiaries, which were used\neverywhere, and especially in the pulpits, for the edification of the\nfaithful. In all of these, as in that compiled early in the thirteenth\ncentury by an ecclesiastic, William of Normandy, we have this lesson,\nborrowed from the Physiologus: \"The lioness giveth birth to cubs which\nremain three days without life. Then cometh the lion, breatheth upon\nthem, and bringeth them to life.... Thus it is that Jesus Christ\nduring three days was deprived of life, but God the Father raised him\ngloriously.\"\n\nPious use was constantly made of this science, especially by monkish\npreachers. The phoenix rising from his ashes proves the doctrine of the\nresurrection; the structure and mischief of monkeys proves the existence\nof demons; the fact that certain monkeys have no tails proves that Satan\nhas been shorn of his glory; the weasel, which \"constantly changes its\nplace, is a type of the man estranged from the word of God, who findeth\nno rest.\"\n\nThe moral treatises of the time often took the form of works on natural\nhistory, in order the more fully to exploit these religious teachings of\nNature. Thus from the book On Bees, the Dominican Thomas of Cantimpre,\nwe learn that \"wasps persecute bees and make war on them out of natural\nhatred\"; and these, he tells us, typify the demons who dwell in the\nair and with lightning and tempest assail and vex mankind--whereupon he\nfills a long chapter with anecdotes of such demonic warfare on mortals.\nIn like manner his fellow-Dominican, the inquisitor Nider, in his book\nThe Ant Hill, teaches us that the ants in Ethiopia, which are said to\nhave horns and to grow so large as to look like dogs, are emblems of\natrocious heretics, like Wyclif and the Hussites, who bark and bite\nagainst the truth; while the ants of India, which dig up gold out of\nthe sand with their feet and hoard it, though they make no use of it,\nsymbolize the fruitless toil with which the heretics dig out the gold of\nHoly Scripture and hoard it in their books to no purpose.\n\nThis pious spirit not only pervaded science; it bloomed out in art, and\nespecially in the cathedrals. In the gargoyles overhanging the walls, in\nthe grotesques clambering about the towers or perched upon pinnacles, in\nthe dragons prowling under archways or lurking in bosses of foliage, in\nthe apocalyptic beasts carved upon the stalls of the choir, stained into\nthe windows, wrought into the tapestries, illuminated in the letters\nand borders of psalters and missals, these marvels of creation suggested\neverywhere morals from the Physiologus, the Bestiaries, and the\nExempla.(14)\n\n\n     (14) For the Physiologus, Bestiaries, etc., see Berger de Xivrey,\nTraditions Teratologiques; also Hippeau's edition of the Bestiare de\nGuillaume de Normandie, Caen, 1852, and such medieaval books of Exempla\nas the Lumen Naturae; also Hoefer, Histoire de la Zoologie; also\nRambaud, Histoire de la Civilisation Francaise, Paris, 1885, vol i, pp.\n368, 369; also Cardinal Pitra, preface to the Spicilegium Solismense,\nParis, 1885, passim; also Carus, Geschichte der Zoologie; and for\nan admirable summary, the article Physiologus in the Encyclopedia\nBritannica. In the illuminated manuscripts in the Library of Cornell\nUniversity are some very striking examples of grotesques. For admirably\nillustrated articles on the Bestiaries, see Cahier and Martin, Melanges\nd'Archeologie, Paris, 1851, 1852, and 1856, vol. ii of the first series,\npp. 85-232, and second series, volume on Curiosities Mysterieuses, pp.\n106-164; also J. R. Allen, Early Christian Symbolism in Great Britain\nand Ireland (London, 1887), lecture vi; for an exhaustive discussion of\nthe subject, see Das Thierbuch des normannischen Dichters Guillaume le\nClerc, herausgegeben von Reinisch, Leipsic, 1890; and for an Italian\nexamlpe, Goldstaub and Wendriner, Ein Tosco-Venezianischer Bestiarius,\nHalle, 1892, where is given, on pp. 369-371, a very pious but very\ncomical tradition regarding the beaver, hardly mentionable to ears\npolite. For Friar Bartholomew, see (besides his book itself) Medieval\nLore, edited by Robert Steele, London, 1893, pp. 118-138.\n\n\nHere and there among men who were free from church control we have work\nof a better sort. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Abd Allatif\nmade observations upon the natural history of Egypt which showed a truly\nscientific spirit, and the Emperor Frederick II attempted to promote a\nmore fruitful study of Nature; but one of these men was abhorred as a\nMussulman and the other as an infidel. Far more in accordance with the\nspirit of the time was the ecclesiastic Giraldus Cambrensis, whose book\non the topography of Ireland bestows much attention upon the animals\nof the island, and rarely fails to make each contribute an appropriate\nmoral. For example, he says that in Ireland \"eagles live for so many\nages that they seem to contend with eternity itself; so also the saints,\nhaving put off the old man and put on the new, obtain the blessed fruit\nof everlasting life.\" Again, he tells us: \"Eagles often fly so high that\ntheir wings are scorched by the sun; so those who in the Holy Scriptures\nstrive to unravel the deep and hidden secrets of the heavenly mysteries,\nbeyond what is allowed, fall below, as if the wings of the presumptuous\nimaginations on which they are borne were scorched.\"\n\nIn one of the great men of the following century appeared a gleam of\nhealthful criticism: Albert the Great, in his work on the animals,\ndissents from the widespread belief that certain birds spring from trees\nand are nourished by the sap, and also from the theory that some are\ngenerated in the sea from decaying wood.\n\nBut it required many generations for such scepticism to produce much\neffect, and we find among the illustrations in an edition of Mandeville\npublished just before the Reformation not only careful accounts but\npictured representations both of birds and of beasts produced in the\nfruit of trees.(15)\n\n\n     (15) For Giraldus Cambrensis, see the edition in the Bohn Library,\nLondon, 1863, p. 30; for the Abd Allatif and Frederick II, see Hoefer,\nas above; for Albertus Magnus, see the De Animalibus, lib. xxiii; for\nthe illustrations in Mandeville, see the Strasburg edition, 1484;\nfor the history of the myth of the tree which produces birds, see Max\nMuller's lectures on the Science of Language, second series, lect. xii.\n\n\nThis general employment of natural science for pious purposes went on\nafter the Reformation. Luther frequently made this use of it, and his\nexample controlled his followers. In 1612, Wolfgang Franz, Professor of\nTheology at Luther's university, gave to the world his sacred history of\nanimals, which went through many editions. It contained a very ingenious\nclassification, describing \"natural dragons,\" which have three rows of\nteeth to each jaw, and he piously adds, \"the principal dragon is the\nDevil.\"\n\nNear the end of the same century, Father Kircher, the great Jesuit\nprofessor at Rome, holds back the sceptical current, insists upon the\northodox view, and represents among the animals entering the ark sirens\nand griffins.\n\nYet even among theologians we note here and there a sceptical spirit\nin natural science. Early in the same seventeenth century Eugene\nRoger published his Travels in Palestine. As regards the utterances\nof Scripture he is soundly orthodox: he prefaces his work with a map\nshowing, among other important points referred to in biblical history,\nthe place where Samson slew a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of\nan ass, the cavern which Adam and Eve inhabited after their expulsion\nfrom paradise, the spot where Balaam's ass spoke, the place where Jacob\nwrestled with the angel, the steep place down which the swine possessed\nof devils plunged into the sea, the position of the salt statue which\nwas once Lot's wife, the place at sea where Jonah was swallowed by\nthe whale, and \"the exact spot where St. Peter caught one hundred and\nfifty-three fishes.\"\n\nAs to natural history, he describes and discusses with great theological\nacuteness the basilisk. He tells us that the animal is about a foot and\na half long, is shaped like a crocodile, and kills people with a single\nglance. The one which he saw was dead, fortunately for him, since in\nthe time of Pope Leo IV--as he tells us--one appeared in Rome and killed\nmany people by merely looking at them; but the Pope destroyed it with\nhis prayers and the sign of the cross. He informs us that Providence\nhas wisely and mercifully protected man by requiring the monster to cry\naloud two or three times whenever it leaves its den, and that the divine\nwisdom in creation is also shown by the fact that the monster is obliged\nto look its victim in the eye, and at a certain fixed distance, before\nits glance can penetrate the victim's brain and so pass to his heart.\nHe also gives a reason for supposing that the same divine mercy has\nprovided that the crowing of a cock will kill the basilisk.\n\nYet even in this good and credulous missionary we see the influence of\nBacon and the dawn of experimental science; for, having been told many\nstories regarding the salamander, he secured one, placed it alive upon\nthe burning coals, and reports to us that the legends concerning its\npower to live in the fire are untrue. He also tried experiments with\nthe chameleon, and found that the stories told of it were to be received\nwith much allowance: while, then, he locks up his judgment whenever he\ndiscusses the letter of Scripture, he uses his mind in other things much\nafter the modern method.\n\nIn the second half of the same century Hottinger, in his Theological\nExamination of the History of Creation, breaks from the belief in the\nphoenix; but his scepticism is carefully kept within the limits imposed\nby Scripture. He avows his doubts, first, \"because God created the\nanimals in couples, while the phoenix is represented as a single,\nunmated creature\"; secondly, \"because Noah, when he entered the ark,\nbrought the animals in by sevens, while there were never so many\nindividuals of the phoenix species\"; thirdly, because \"no man is known\nwho dares assert that he has ever seen this bird\"; fourthly, because\n\"those who assert there is a phoenix differ among themselves.\"\n\nIn view of these attacks on the salamander and the phoenix, we are not\nsurprised to find, before the end of the century, scepticism regarding\nthe basilisk: the eminent Prof. Kirchmaier, at the University of\nWittenberg, treats phoenix and basilisk alike as old wives' fables. As\nto the phoenix, he denies its existence, not only because Noah took no\nsuch bird into the ark, but also because, as he pithily remarks, \"birds\ncome from eggs, not from ashes.\" But the unicorn he can not resign, nor\nwill he even concede that the unicorn is a rhinoceros; he appeals to\nJob and to Marco Polo to prove that this animal, as usually conceived,\nreally exists, and says, \"Who would not fear to deny the existence of\nthe unicorn, since Holy Scripture names him with distinct praises?\"\nAs to the other great animals mentioned in Scripture, he is so\nrationalistic as to admit that behemoth was an elephant and leviathan a\nwhale.\n\nBut these germs of a fruitful scepticism grew, and we soon find\nDannhauer going a step further and declaring his disbelief even in the\nunicorn, insisting that it was a rhinoceros--only that and nothing more.\nStill, the main current continued strongly theological. In 1712 Samuel\nBochart published his great work upon the animals of Holy Scripture. As\nshowing its spirit we may take the titles of the chapters on the horse:\n\n\"Chapter VI. Of the Hebrew Name of the Horse.\"\n\n\"Chapter VII. Of the Colours of the Six Horses in Zechariah.\"\n\n\"Chapter VIII. Of the Horses in Job.\"\n\n\"Chapter IX. Of Solomon's Horses, and of the Texts wherein the Writers\npraise the Excellence of Horses.\"\n\n\"Chapter X. Of the Consecrated Horses of the Sun.\"\n\nAmong the other titles of chapters are such as: Of Balaam's Ass; Of the\nThousand Philistines slain by Samson with the Jawbone of an Ass; Of\nthe Golden Calves of Aaron and Jeroboam; Of the Bleating, Milk, Wool,\nExternal and Internal Parts of Sheep mentioned in Scripture; Of Notable\nThings told regarding Lions in Scripture; Of Noah's Dove and of the\nDove which appeared at Christ's Baptism. Mixed up in the book, with\nthe principal mass drawn from Scripture, were many facts and reasonings\ntaken from investigations by naturalists; but all were permeated by the\ntheological spirit.(16)\n\n\n     (16) For Franz and Kircher, see Perrier, La Philosophie Zoologique avant\nDarwin, 1884, p. 29; for Roger, see his La Terre Saincte, Paris, 1664,\npp. 89-92, 130, 218, etc.; for Hottinger, see his Historiae\nCreatonis Examen theologico-philologicum, Heidelberg, 1659, lib.\nvi, quaest lxxxiii; for Kirchmaier, see his Disputationes Zoologicae\n(published collectively after his death), Jena, 1736; for Dannhauer, see\nhis Disputationes Theologicae, Leipsic, 1707, p. 14; for Bochart, see\nhis Hierozoikon, sive De Animalibus Sacre Scripturae, Leyden, 1712.\n\n\nThe inquiry into Nature having thus been pursued nearly two thousand\nyears theologically, we find by the middle of the sixteenth century some\npromising beginnings of a different method--the method of inquiry into\nNature scientifically--the method which seeks not plausibilities but\nfacts. At that time Edward Wotton led the way in England and Conrad\nGesner on the Continent, by observations widely extended, carefully\nnoted, and thoughtfully classified.\n\nThis better method of interrogating Nature soon led to the formation of\nsocieties for the same purpose. In 1560 was founded an Academy for the\nStudy of Nature at Naples, but theologians, becoming alarmed, suppressed\nit, and for nearly one hundred years there was no new combined effort\nof that sort, until in 1645 began the meetings in London of what was\nafterward the Royal Society. Then came the Academy of Sciences in\nFrance, and the Accademia del Cimento in Italy; others followed in all\nparts of the world, and a great new movement was begun.\n\nTheologians soon saw a danger in this movement. In Italy, Prince Leopold\nde' Medici, a protector of the Florentine Academy, was bribed with a\ncardinal's hat to neglect it, and from the days of Urban VIII to Pius\nIX a similar spirit was there shown. In France, there were frequent\necclesiastical interferences, of which Buffon's humiliation for stating\na simple scientific truth was a noted example. In England, Protestantism\nwas at first hardly more favourable toward the Royal Society, and the\ngreat Dr. South denounced it in his sermons as irreligious.\n\nFortunately, one thing prevented an open breach between theology and\nscience: while new investigators had mainly given up the medieval method\nso dear to the Church, they had very generally retained the conception\nof direct creation and of design throughout creation--a design having\nas its main purpose the profit, instruction, enjoyment, and amusement of\nman.\n\nOn this the naturally opposing tendencies of theology and science were\ncompromised. Science, while somewhat freed from its old limitations,\nbecame the handmaid of theology in illustrating the doctrine of creative\ndesign, and always with apparent deference to the Chaldean and other\nancient myths and legends embodied in the Hebrew sacred books.\n\nAbout the middle of the seventeenth century came a great victory of\nthe scientific over the theologic method. At that time Francesco Redi\npublished the results of his inquiries into the doctrine of spontaneous\ngeneration. For ages a widely accepted doctrine had been that water,\nfilth, and carrion had received power from the Creator to generate\nworms, insects, and a multitude of the smaller animals; and this\ndoctrine had been especially welcomed by St. Augustine and many of the\nfathers, since it relieved the Almighty of making, Adam of naming, and\nNoah of living in the ark with these innumerable despised species.\nBut to this fallacy Redi put an end. By researches which could not be\ngainsaid, he showed that every one of these animals came from an egg;\neach, therefore, must be the lineal descendant of an animal created,\nnamed, and preserved from \"the beginning.\"\n\nSimilar work went on in England, but under more distinctly theological\nlimitations. In the same seventeenth century a very famous and popular\nEnglish book was published by the naturalist John Ray, a fellow of the\nRoyal Society, who produced a number of works on plants, fishes, and\nbirds; but the most widely read of all was entitled The Wisdom of God\nmanifested in the Works of Creation. Between the years 1691 and 1827 it\npassed through nearly twenty editions.\n\nRay argued the goodness and wisdom of God from the adaptation of the\nanimals not only to man's uses but to their own lives and surroundings.\n\nIn the first years of the eighteenth century Dr. Nehemiah Grew, of the\nRoyal Society, published his Cosmologia Sacra to refute anti-scriptural\nopinions by producing evidences of creative design. Discussing \"the ends\nof Providence,\" he says, \"A crane, which is scurvy meat, lays but two\neggs in the year, but a pheasant and partridge, both excellent meat, lay\nand hatch fifteen or twenty.\" He points to the fact that \"those of value\nwhich lay few at a time sit the oftener, as the woodcock and the dove.\"\nHe breaks decidedly from the doctrine that noxious things in Nature are\ncaused by sin, and shows that they, too, are useful; that, \"if nettles\nsting, it is to secure an excellent medicine for children and cattle\";\nthat, \"if the bramble hurts man, it makes all the better hedge\"; and\nthat, \"if it chances to prick the owner, it tears the thief.\" \"Weasels,\nkites, and other hurtful animals induce us to watchfulness; thistles and\nmoles, to good husbandry; lice oblige us to cleanliness in our\nbodies, spiders in our houses, and the moth in our clothes.\" This very\noptimistic view, triumphing over the theological theory of noxious\nanimals and plants as effects of sin, which prevailed with so much force\nfrom St. Augustine to Wesley, was developed into nobler form during the\ncentury by various thinkers, and especially by Archdeacon Paley, whose\nNatural Theology exercised a powerful influence down to recent\ntimes. The same tendency appeared in other countries, though various\nphilosophers showed weak points in the argument, and Goethe made sport\nof it in a noted verse, praising the forethought of the Creator in\nforeordaining the cork tree to furnish stoppers for wine-bottles.\n\nShortly before the middle of the nineteenth century the main movement\nculminated in the Bridgewater Treatises. Pursuant to the will of the\neighth Earl of Bridgewater, the President of the Royal Society selected\neight persons, each to receive a thousand pounds sterling for writing\nand publishing a treatise on the \"power, wisdom, and goodness of God, as\nmanifested in the creation.\" Of these, the leading essays in regard\nto animated Nature were those of Thomas Chalmers, on The Adaptation of\nExternal Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Condition of Man; of Sir\nCharles Bell, on The Hand as evincing Design; of Roget, on Animal and\nVegetable Physiology with reference to Natural Theology; and of Kirby,\non The Habits and Instincts of Animals with reference to Natural\nTheology.\n\nBesides these there were treatises by Whewell, Buckland, Kidd, and\nProut. The work was well done. It was a marked advance on all that had\nappeared before, in matter, method, and spirit. Looking back upon it\nnow we can see that it was provisional, but that it was none the less\nfruitful in truth, and we may well remember Darwin's remark on\nthe stimulating effect of mistaken THEORIES, as compared with the\nsterilizing effect of mistaken OBSERVATIONS: mistaken observations lead\nmen astray, mistaken theories suggest true theories.\n\nAn effort made in so noble a spirit certainly does not deserve the\nridicule that, in our own day, has sometimes been lavished upon it.\nCuriously, indeed, one of the most contemptuous of these criticisms has\nbeen recently made by one of the most strenuous defenders of orthodoxy.\nNo less eminent a standard-bearer of the faith than the Rev. Prof.\nZoeckler says of this movement to demonstrate creative purpose and\ndesign, and of the men who took part in it, \"The earth appeared in their\nrepresentation of it like a great clothing shop and soup kitchen, and\nGod as a glorified rationalistic professor.\" Such a statement as this\nis far from just to the conceptions of such men as Butler, Paley,\nand Chalmers, no matter how fully the thinking world has now outlived\nthem.(17)\n\n\n     (17) For a very valuable and interesting study on the old idea of the\ngeneration of insects from carrion, see Osten-Sacken, on the Oxen-born\nBees of the Ancients, Heidelberg, 1894; for Ray, see the work cited,\nLondon, 1827, p. 153; for Grew, see Cosmologia Sacra, or a Discourse on\nthe Universe, as it is the Creature and Kingdom of God; chiefly written\nto demonstrate the Truth and Excellency of the Bible, by Dr. Nehemiah\nGrew, Fellow of the College of Physicians and of the Royal Society of\nLondon, 1701; for Paley and the Bridgewater Treatises, see the usual\neditions; also Lange, History of Rationalism. Goethe's couplet ran as\nfollows:\n\n\"Welche Verehrung verdient der Weltenerschopfer, der Gnadig, Als er den\nKorkbaum erschuf, gleich auch die Stopfel erfand.\"\n\nFor the quotation from Zoeckler, see his work already cited, vol. ii,\npp. 74, 440.\n\n\nBut, noble as the work of these men was, the foundation of fact on which\nthey reared it became evidently more and more insecure. For as far\nback as the seventeenth century acute theologians had begun to discern\ndifficulties more serious than any that had before confronted them.\nMore and more it was seen that the number of different species was far\ngreater than the world had hitherto imagined. Greater and greater had\nbecome the old difficulty in conceiving that, of these innumerable\nspecies, each had been specially created by the Almighty hand; that each\nhad been brought before Adam by the Almighty to be named; and that each,\nin couples or in sevens, had been gathered by Noah into the ark. But the\ndifficulties thus suggested were as nothing compared to those raised by\nthe DISTRIBUTION of animals.\n\nEven in the first days of the Church this had aroused serious thought,\nand above all in the great mind of St. Augustine. In his City of God he\nhad stated the difficulty as follows: \"But there is a question about all\nthese kinds of beasts, which are neither tamed by man, nor spring from\nthe earth like frogs, such as wolves and others of that sort,.... as\nto how they could find their way to the islands after that flood which\ndestroyed every living thing not preserved in the ark.... Some, indeed,\nmight be thought to reach islands by swimming, in case these were very\nnear; but some islands are so remote from continental lands that it does\nnot seem possible that any creature could reach them by swimming. It\nis not an incredible thing, either, that some animals may have been\ncaptured by men and taken with them to those lands which they intended\nto inhabit, in order that they might have the pleasure of hunting;\nand it can not be denied that the transfer may have been accomplished\nthrough the agency of angels, commanded or allowed to perform this\nlabour by God.\"\n\nBut this difficulty had now assumed a magnitude of which St. Augustine\nnever dreamed. Most powerful of all agencies to increase it were the\nvoyages of Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Magellan, Amerigo Vespucci, and\nother navigators of the period of discovery. Still more serious did it\nbecome as the great islands of the southern seas were explored. Every\nnavigator brought home tidings of new species of animals and of races of\nmen living in parts of the world where the theologians, relying on the\nstatement of St. Paul that the gospel had gone into all lands, had for\nages declared there could be none; until finally it overtaxed even\nthe theological imagination to conceive of angels, in obedience to\nthe divine command, distributing the various animals over the earth,\ndropping the megatherium in South America, the archeopteryx in Europe,\nthe ornithorhynchus in Australia, and the opossum in North America.\n\nThe first striking evidence of this new difficulty was shown by the\neminent Jesuit missionary, Joseph Acosta. In his Natural and Moral\nHistory of the Indies, published in 1590, he proved himself honest and\nlucid. Though entangled in most of the older scriptural views, he broke\naway from many; but the distribution of animals gave him great trouble.\nHaving shown the futility of St. Augustine's other explanations, he\nquaintly asks: \"Who can imagine that in so long a voyage men woulde\ntake the paines to carrie Foxes to Peru, especially that kinde they call\n'Acias,' which is the filthiest I have seene? Who woulde likewise say\nthat they have carried Tygers and Lyons? Truly it were a thing worthy\nthe laughing at to thinke so. It was sufficient, yea, very much, for\nmen driven against their willes by tempest, in so long and unknowne a\nvoyage, to escape with their owne lives, without busying themselves to\ncarrie Woolves and Foxes, and to nourish them at sea.\"\n\nIt was under the impression made by this new array of facts that in 1667\nAbraham Milius published at Geneva his book on The Origin of Animals\nand the Migration of Peoples. This book shows, like that of Acosta,\nthe shock and strain to which the discovery of America subjected the\nreceived theological scheme of things. It was issued with the special\napprobation of the Bishop of Salzburg, and it indicates the possibility\nthat a solution of the whole trouble may be found in the text, \"Let the\nearth bring forth the living creature after his kind.\" Milius goes on to\nshow that the ancient philosophers agree with Moses, and that \"the earth\nand the waters, and especially the heat of the sun and of the genial\nsky, together with that slimy and putrid quality which seems to be\ninherent in the soil, may furnish the origin for fishes, terrestrial\nanimals, and birds.\" On the other hand, he is very severe against those\nwho imagine that man can have had the same origin with animals. But the\nsubject with which Milius especially grapples is the DISTRIBUTION of\nanimals. He is greatly exercised by the many species found in America\nand in remote islands of the ocean--species entirely unknown in the\nother continents--and of course he is especially troubled by the fact\nthat these species existing in those exceedingly remote parts of the\nearth do not exist in the neighbourhood of Mount Ararat. He confesses\nthat to explain the distribution of animals is the most difficult part\nof the problem. If it be urged that birds could reach America by flying\nand fishes by swimming, he asks, \"What of the beasts which neither fly\nnor swim?\" Yet even as to the birds he asks, \"Is there not an infinite\nvariety of winged creatures who fly so slowly and heavily, and have such\na horror of the water, that they would not even dare trust themselves to\nfly over a wide river?\" As to fishes, he says, \"They are very averse\nto wandering from their native waters,\" and he shows that there are\nnow reported many species of American and East Indian fishes entirely\nunknown on the other continents, whose presence, therefore, can not be\nexplained by any theory of natural dispersion.\n\nOf those who suggest that land animals may have been dispersed over the\nearth by the direct agency of man for his use or pleasure he asks: \"Who\nwould like to get different sorts of lions, bears, tigers, and other\nferocious and noxious creatures on board ship? who would trust himself\nwith them? and who would wish to plant colonies of such creatures in\nnew, desirable lands?\"\n\nHis conclusion is that plants and animals take their origin in the lands\nwherein they are found; an opinion which he supports by quoting from the\ntwo narrations in Genesis passages which imply generative force in earth\nand water.\n\nBut in the eighteenth century matters had become even worse for the\ntheological view. To meet the difficulty the eminent Benedictine, Dom\nCalmet, in his Commentary, expressed the belief that all the species of\na genus had originally formed one species, and he dwelt on this view\nas one which enabled him to explain the possibility of gathering all\nanimals into the ark. This idea, dangerous as it was to the fabric of\northodoxy, and involving a profound separation from the general doctrine\nof the Church, seems to have been abroad among thinking men, for we\nfind in the latter half of the same century even Linnaeus inclining to\nconsider it. It was time, indeed, that some new theological theory be\nevolved; the great Linnaeus himself, in spite of his famous declaration\nfavouring the fixity of species, had dealt a death-blow to the\nold theory. In his Systema Naturae, published in the middle of the\neighteenth century, he had enumerated four thousand species of animals,\nand the difficulties involved in the naming of each of them by Adam and\nin bringing them together in the ark appeared to all thinking men more\nand more insurmountable.\n\nWhat was more embarrassing, the number of distinct species went on\nincreasing rapidly, indeed enormously, until, as an eminent zoological\nauthority of our own time has declared, \"for every one of the species\nenumerated by Linnaeus, more than fifty kinds are known to the\nnaturalist of to-day, and the number of species still unknown doubtless\nfar exceeds the list of those recorded.\"\n\nAlready there were premonitions of the strain made upon Scripture by\nrequiring a hundred and sixty distinct miraculous interventions of the\nCreator to produce the hundred and sixty species of land shells found\nin the little island of Madeira alone, and fourteen hundred distinct\ninterventions to produce the actual number of distinct species of a\nsingle well-known shell.\n\nEver more and more difficult, too, became the question of the\ngeographical distribution of animals. As new explorations were made in\nvarious parts of the world, this danger to the theological view went on\nincreasing. The sloths in South America suggested painful questions: How\ncould animals so sluggish have got away from the neighbourhood of Mount\nArarat so completely and have travelled so far?\n\nThe explorations in Australia and neighbouring islands made matters\nstill worse, for there was found in those regions a whole realm of\nanimals differing widely from those of other parts of the earth.\n\nThe problem before the strict theologians became, for example, how to\nexplain the fact that the kangaroo can have been in the ark and be now\nonly found in Australia: his saltatory powers are indeed great, but\nhow could he by any series of leaps have sprung across the intervening\nmountains, plains, and oceans to that remote continent? and, if the\ntheory were adopted that at some period a causeway extended across the\nvast chasm separating Australia from the nearest mainland, why did not\nlions, tigers, camels, and camelopards force or find their way across\nit?\n\nThe theological theory, therefore, had by the end of the eighteenth\ncentury gone to pieces. The wiser theologians waited; the unwise\nindulged in exhortations to \"root out the wicked heart of unbelief,\" in\ndenunciation of \"science falsely so called,\" and in frantic declarations\nthat \"the Bible is true\"--by which they meant that the limited\nunderstanding of it which they had happened to inherit is true.\n\nBy the middle of the nineteenth century the whole theological theory\nof creation--though still preached everywhere as a matter of form--was\nclearly seen by all thinking men to be hopelessly lost: such strong men\nas Cardinal Wiseman in the Roman Church, Dean Buckland in the Anglican,\nand Hugh Miller in the Scottish Church, made heroic efforts to save\nsomething from it, but all to no purpose. That sturdy Teutonic and\nAnglo-Saxon honesty, which is the best legacy of the Middle Ages to\nChristendom, asserted itself in the old strongholds of theological\nthought, the universities. Neither the powerful logic of Bishop Butler\nnor the nimble reasoning of Archdeacon Paley availed. Just as the line\nof astronomical thinkers from Copernicus to Newton had destroyed the old\nastronomy, in which the earth was the centre, and the Almighty sitting\nabove the firmament the agent in moving the heavenly bodies about it\nwith his own hands, so now a race of biological thinkers had destroyed\nthe old idea of a Creator minutely contriving and fashioning all animals\nto suit the needs and purposes of man. They had developed a system of a\nvery different sort, and this we shall next consider.(18)\n\n\n     (18) For Acosta, see his Historia Natural y moral de las Indias,\nSeville, 1590--the quaint English translation is of London, 1604; for\nAbraham Milius, see his De Origine Animalium et Migratione Popularum,\nGeneva, 1667; also Kosmos, 1877, H. I, S. 36; for Linnaeus's declaration\nregarding species, see the Philosophia Botanica, 99, 157; for Calmet and\nLinnaeus, see Zoeckler, vol. ii, p. 237. As to the enormously increasing\nnumbers of species in zoology and botany, see President D. S. Jordan,\nScience Sketches, pp. 176, 177; also for pithy statement, Laing's\nProblems of the Future, chap. vi.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THEOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC THEORIES, OF AN EVOLUTION IN ANIMATED\nNATURE.\n\n\nWe have seen, thus far, how there came into the thinking of mankind\nupon the visible universe and its inhabitants the idea of a creation\nvirtually instantaneous and complete, and of a Creator in human form\nwith human attributes, who spoke matter into existence literally by the\nexercise of his throat and lips, or shaped and placed it with his hands\nand fingers.\n\nWe have seen that this view came from far; that it existed in the\nChaldaeo-Babylonian and Egyptian civilizations, and probably in others\nof the earliest date known to us; that its main features passed thence\ninto the sacred books of the Hebrews and then into the early Christian\nChurch, by whose theologians it was developed through the Middle Ages\nand maintained during the modern period.\n\nBut, while this idea was thus developed by a succession of noble and\nthoughtful men through thousands of years, another conception, to all\nappearance equally ancient, was developed, sometimes in antagonism to\nit, sometimes mingled with it--the conception of all living beings as\nwholly or in part the result of a growth process--of an evolution.\n\nThis idea, in various forms, became a powerful factor in nearly all the\ngreater ancient theologies and philosophies. For very widespread among\nthe early peoples who attained to much thinking power was a conception\nthat, in obedience to the divine fiat, a watery chaos produced the\nearth, and that the sea and land gave birth to their inhabitants.\n\nThis is clearly seen in those records of Chaldaeo-Babylonian thought\ndeciphered in these latter years, to which reference has already been\nmade. In these we have a watery chaos which, under divine action, brings\nforth the earth and its inhabitants; first the sea animals and then the\nland animals--the latter being separated into three kinds, substantially\nas recorded afterward in the Hebrew accounts. At the various stages in\nthe work the Chaldean Creator pronounces it \"beautiful,\" just as the\nHebrew Creator in our own later account pronounces it \"good.\"\n\nIn both accounts there is placed over the whole creation a solid,\nconcave firmament; in both, light is created first, and the heavenly\nbodies are afterward placed \"for signs and for seasons\"; in both, the\nnumber seven is especially sacred, giving rise to a sacred division of\ntime and to much else. It may be added that, with many other features in\nthe Hebrew legends evidently drawn from the Chaldean, the account of the\ncreation in each is followed by a legend regarding \"the fall of man\" and\na deluge, many details of which clearly passed in slightly modified form\nfrom the Chaldean into the Hebrew accounts.\n\nIt would have been a miracle indeed if these primitive conceptions,\nwrought out with so much poetic vigour in that earlier civilization\non the Tigris and Euphrates, had failed to influence the Hebrews, who\nduring the most plastic periods of their development were under the\ntutelage of their Chaldean neighbours. Since the researches of Layard,\nGeorge Smith, Oppert, Schrader, Jensen, Sayce, and their compeers, there\nis no longer a reasonable doubt that this ancient view of the world,\nelaborated if not originated in that earlier civilization, came thence\nas a legacy to the Hebrews, who wrought it in a somewhat disjointed but\nmainly monotheistic form into the poetic whole which forms one of the\nmost precious treasures of ancient thought preserved in the book of\nGenesis.\n\nThus it was that, while the idea of a simple material creation literally\nby the hands and fingers or voice of the Creator became, as we have\nseen, the starting-point of a powerful stream of theological thought,\nand while this stream was swollen from age to age by contributions from\nthe fathers, doctors, and learned divines of the Church, Catholic\nand Protestant, there was poured into it this lesser current, always\ndiscernible and at times clearly separated from it--a current of belief\nin a process of evolution.\n\nThe Rev. Prof. Sayce, of Oxford, than whom no English-speaking scholar\ncarries more weight in a matter of this kind, has recently declared his\nbelief that the Chaldaeo-Babylonian theory was the undoubted source of\nthe similar theory propounded by the Ionic philosopher Anaximander--the\nGreek thinkers deriving this view from the Babylonians through the\nPhoenicians; he also allows that from the same source its main features\nwere adopted into both the accounts given in the first of our\nsacred books, and in this general view the most eminent Christian\nAssyriologists concur.\n\nIt is true that these sacred accounts of ours contradict each other. In\nthat part of the first or Elohistic account given in the first chapter\nof Genesis the WATERS bring forth fishes, marine animals, and birds\n(Genesis, i, 20); but in that part of the second or Jehovistic account\ngiven in the second chapter of Genesis both the land animals and birds\nare declared to have been created not out of the water, but \"OUT OF THE\nGROUND\" (Genesis, ii, 19).\n\nThe dialectic skill of the fathers was easily equal to explaining away\nthis contradiction; but the old current of thought, strengthened by both\nthese legends, arrested their attention, and, passing through the\nminds of a succession of the greatest men of the Church, influenced\ntheological opinion deeply, if not widely, for ages, in favour of an\nevolution theory.\n\nBut there was still another ancient source of evolution ideas.\nThoughtful men of the early civilizations which were developed along the\ngreat rivers in the warmer regions of the earth noted how the sun-god as\nhe rose in his fullest might caused the water and the rich soil to teem\nwith the lesser forms of life. In Egypt, especially, men saw how\nunder this divine power the Nile slime brought forth \"creeping things\ninnumerable.\" Hence mainly this ancient belief that the animals and\nman were produced by lifeless matter at the divine command, \"in the\nbeginning,\" was supplemented by the idea that some of the lesser\nanimals, especially the insects, were produced by a later evolution,\nbeing evoked after the original creation from various sources, but\nchiefly from matter in a state of decay.\n\nThis crude, early view aided doubtless in giving germs of a better\nevolution theory to the early Greeks. Anaximander, Empedocles,\nAnaxagoras, and, greatest of all, Aristotle, as we have seen, developed\nthem, making their way at times by guesses toward truths since\nestablished by observation. Aristotle especially, both by speculation\nand observation, arrived at some results which, had Greek freedom\nof thought continued, might have brought the world long since to its\npresent plane of biological knowledge; for he reached something like the\nmodern idea of a succession of higher organizations from lower, and made\nthe fruitful suggestion of \"a perfecting principle\" in Nature.\n\nWith the coming in of Christian theology this tendency toward a yet\ntruer theory of evolution was mainly stopped, but the old crude view\nremained, and as a typical example of it we may note the opinion of St.\nBasil the Great in the fourth century. Discussing the work of creation,\nhe declares that, at the command of God, \"the waters were gifted with\nproductive power\"; \"from slime and muddy places frogs, flies, and gnats\ncame into being\"; and he finally declares that the same voice which gave\nthis energy and quality of productiveness to earth and water shall be\nsimilarly efficacious until the end of the world. St. Gregory of Nyssa\nheld a similar view.\n\nThis idea of these great fathers of the Eastern Church took even\nstronger hold on the great father of the Western Church. For St.\nAugustine, so fettered usually by the letter of the sacred text, broke\nfrom his own famous doctrine as to the acceptance of Scripture and\nspurned the generally received belief of a creative process like that by\nwhich a toymaker brings into existence a box of playthings. In his great\ntreatise on Genesis he says: \"To suppose that God formed man from the\ndust with bodily hands is very childish.... God neither formed man with\nbodily hands nor did he breathe upon him with throat and lips.\"\n\nSt. Augustine then suggests the adoption of the old emanation or\nevolution theory, shows that \"certain very small animals may not have\nbeen created on the fifth and sixth days, but may have originated later\nfrom putrefying matter,\" argues that, even if this be so, God is still\ntheir creator, dwells upon such a potential creation as involved in the\nactual creation, and speaks of animals \"whose numbers the after-time\nunfolded.\"\n\nIn his great treatise on the Trinity--the work to which he devoted the\nbest thirty years of his life--we find the full growth of this opinion.\nHe develops at length the view that in the creation of living beings\nthere was something like a growth--that God is the ultimate author,\nbut works through secondary causes; and finally argues that certain\nsubstances are endowed by God with the power of producing certain\nclasses of plants and animals.(19)\n\n\n     (19) For the Chaldean view of creation, see George Smith, Chaldean\nAccount of Genesis, New York, 1876, pp. 14,15, and 64-86; also Lukas, as\nabove; also Sayce, Religion of the Ancient Babylonians, Hibbert Lectures\nfor 1887, pp. 371 and elsewhere; as to the fall of man, Tower of Babel,\nsacredness of the number seven, etc., see also Delitzsch, appendix to\nthe German translation of Smith, pp. 305 et seq.; as to the almost exact\nadoption of the Chaldean legends into the Hebrew sacred account, see\nall these, as also Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte\nTestament, Giessen, 1883, early chapters; also article Babylonia in\nthe Encyclopedia Britannica; as to similar approval of creation by the\nCreator in both accounts, see George Smith, p. 73; as to the migration\nof the Babylonian legends to the Hebrews, see Schrader, Whitehouse's\ntranslation, pp. 44,45; as to the Chaldaean belief ina solid firmament,\nwhile Schrader in 1883 thought it not proved, Jensen in 1890 has found\nit clearly expresses--see his Kosmologie der Babylonier, pp.9 et seq.,\nalso pp. 304-306, and elsewhere. Dr. Lukas in 1893 also fully accepts\nthis view of a Chaldean record of a \"firmament\"--see Kosmologie, pp.\n43, etc.; see also Maspero and Sayce, the Dawn of Civilization, and for\ncrude early ideas of evolution in Egypt, see ibid., pp. 156 et seq.\n\nFor the seven-day week among the Chaldeans and rest on the seventh day,\nand the proof that even the name \"Sabbath\" is of Chaldean origin, see\nDelitzsch, Beiga-ben zu Smith's Chald. Genesis, pp. 300 and 306; also\nSchrader; for St. Basil, see Hexaemeron and Homilies vii-ix; but for the\nsteadfastness of Basil's view in regard to the immutability of species,\nsee a Catholic writer on evolution and Faith in the Dublin Review for\nJuly, 1871, p. 13; for citations of St. Augustine on Genesis, see the De\nGenesi contra Manichoeos, lib. ii, cap. 14, in Migne, xxxiv, 188,--lib.\nv, cap. 5 and cap. 23,--and lib vii, cap I; for the citations from his\nwork on the Trinity, see his De Trinitate, lib. iii, cap. 8 and 9, in\nMigne, xlii, 877, 878; for the general subject very fully and adequately\npresented, see Osborn, From the Greeks to Darwin, New York, 1894, chaps.\nii and iii.\n\n\nThis idea of a development by secondary causes apart from the original\ncreation was helped in its growth by a theological exigency. More and\nmore, as the organic world was observed, the vast multitude of petty\nanimals, winged creatures, and \"creeping things\" was felt to be a\nstrain upon the sacred narrative. More and more it became difficult to\nreconcile the dignity of the Almighty with his work in bringing each\nof these creatures before Adam to be named; or to reconcile the human\nlimitations of Adam with his work in naming \"every living creature\"; or\nto reconcile the dimensions of Noah's ark with the space required for\npreserving all of them, and the food of all sorts necessary for their\nsustenance, whether they were admitted by twos, as stated in one\nscriptural account, or by sevens, as stated in the other.\n\nThe inadequate size of the ark gave especial trouble. Origen had dealt\nwith it by suggesting that the cubit was six times greater than had been\nsupposed. Bede explained Noah's ability to complete so large a vessel by\nsupposing that he worked upon it during a hundred years; and, as to the\nprovision of food taken into it, he declared that there was no need of\na supply for more than one day, since God could throw the animals into\na deep sleep or otherwise miraculously make one day's supply sufficient;\nhe also lessened the strain on faith still more by diminishing\nthe number of animals taken into the ark--supporting his view upon\nAugustine's theory of the later development of insects out of carrion.\n\nDoubtless this theological necessity was among the main reasons which\nled St. Isidore of Seville, in the seventh century, to incorporate\nthis theory, supported by St. Basil and St. Augustine, into his great\nencyclopedic work which gave materials for thought on God and Nature to\nso many generations. He familiarized the theological world still further\nwith the doctrine of secondary creation, giving such examples of it as\nthat \"bees are generated from decomposed veal, beetles from horseflesh,\ngrasshoppers from mules, scorpions from crabs,\" and, in order to give\nstill stronger force to the idea of such transformations, he dwells\non the biblical account of Nebuchadnezzar, which appears to have taken\nstrong hold upon medieval thought in science, and he declares that\nother human beings had been changed into animals, especially into swine,\nwolves, and owls.\n\nThis doctrine of after-creations went on gathering strength until, in\nthe twelfth century, Peter Lombard, in his theological summary, The\nSentences, so powerful in moulding the thought of the Church, emphasized\nthe distinction between animals which spring from carrion and those\nwhich are created from earth and water; the former he holds to have been\ncreated \"potentially\" the latter \"actually.\"\n\nIn the century following, this idea was taken up by St. Thomas Aquinas\nand virtually received from him its final form. In the Summa, which\nremains the greatest work of medieval thought, he accepts the idea that\ncertain animals spring from the decaying bodies of plants and animals,\nand declares that they are produced by the creative word of God either\nactually or virtually. He develops this view by saying, \"Nothing was\nmade by God, after the six days of creation, absolutely new, but it was\nin some sense included in the work of the six days\"; and that \"even\nnew species, if any appear, have existed before in certain native\nproperties, just as animals are produced from putrefaction.\"\n\nThe distinction thus developed between creation \"causally\" or\n\"potentially,\" and \"materially\" or \"formally,\" was made much of by\ncommentators afterward. Cornelius a Lapide spread it by saying that\ncertain animals were created not \"absolutely,\" but only \"derivatively,\"\nand this thought was still further developed three centuries later by\nAugustinus Eugubinus, who tells us that, after the first creative energy\nhad called forth land and water, light was made by the Almighty, the\ninstrument of all future creation, and that the light called everything\ninto existence.\n\nAll this \"science falsely so called,\" so sedulously developed by the\nmaster minds of the Church, and yet so futile that we might almost\nsuppose that the great apostle, in a glow of prophetic vision, had\nforeseen it in his famous condemnation, seems at this distance very\nharmless indeed; yet, to many guardians of the \"sacred deposit of\ndoctrine\" in the Church, even so slight a departure from the main\ncurrent of thought seemed dangerous. It appeared to them like pressing\nthe doctrine of secondary causes to a perilous extent; and about the\nbeginning of the seventeenth century we have the eminent Spanish Jesuit\nand theologian Suarez denouncing it, and declaring St. Augustine a\nheretic for his share in it.\n\nBut there was little danger to the older idea just then; the main\ntheological tendency was so strong that the world kept on as of old.\nBiblical theology continued to spin its own webs out of its own bowels,\nand all the lesser theological flies continued to be entangled in them;\nyet here and there stronger thinkers broke loose from this entanglement\nand helped somewhat to disentangle others.(20)\n\n\n     (20) For Bede's view of the ark and the origin of insects, see his\nHexaemeron, i and ii; for Isidore, see the Etymologiae, xi, 4, and xiii,\n22; for Peter Lombard, see Sent., lib. ii, dist. xv, 4 (in Migne,\ncxcii, 682); for St. Thomas Aquinas as to the laws of Nature, see Summae\nTheologica, i, Quaest. lxvii, art. iv; for his discussion on Avicenna's\ntheory of the origin of animals, see ibid., i Quaest. lxxi, vol. i,\npp. 1184 and 1185, of Migne's edit.; for his idea as to the word of God\nbeing the active producing principle, see ibid., i, Quaest. lxxi, art.\ni; for his remarks on species, see ibid, i, Quaest. lxxii, art. i;\nfor his ideas on the necessity of the procreation of man, see ibid, i,\nQuaest. lxxii, art. i; for the origin of animals from putrefaction,\nsee ibid, i, Quaest. lxxix, art. i, 3; for Cornelius a Lapide on the\nderivative creation of animals, see his In Genesim Comment., cap. i,\ncited by Mivart, Genesis of Species, p. 282; for a reference to Suarez's\ndenunciation of the view of St. Augustine, see Huxley's Essays.\n\n\nAt the close of the Middle Ages, in spite of the devotion of the\nReformed Church to the letter of Scripture, the revival of learning and\nthe great voyages gave an atmosphere in which better thinking on the\nproblems of Nature began to gain strength. On all sides, in every field,\nmen were making discoveries which caused the general theological view to\nappear more and more inadequate.\n\nFirst of those who should be mentioned with reverence as beginning to\ndevelop again that current of Greek thought which the system drawn\nfrom our sacred books by the fathers and doctors of the Church had\ninterrupted for more than a thousand years, was Giordano Bruno. His\nutterances were indeed vague and enigmatical, but this fault may well be\nforgiven him, for he saw but too clearly what must be his reward for\nany more open statements. His reward indeed came--even for his faulty\nutterances--when, toward the end of the nineteenth century, thoughtful\nmen from all parts of the world united in erecting his statue on the\nspot where he had been burned by the Roman Inquisition nearly three\nhundred years before.\n\nAfter Bruno's death, during the first half of the seventeenth century,\nDescartes seemed about to take the leadership of human thought: his\ntheories, however superseded now, gave a great impulse to investigation\nthen. His genius in promoting an evolution doctrine as regards the\nmechanical formation of the solar system was great, and his mode of\nthought strengthened the current of evolutionary doctrine generally; but\nhis constant dread of persecution, both from Catholics and Protestants,\nled him steadily to veil his thoughts and even to suppress them. The\nexecution of Bruno had occurred in his childhood, and in the midst of\nhis career he had watched the Galileo struggle in all its stages. He had\nseen his own works condemned by university after university under the\ndirection of theologians, and placed upon the Roman Index. Although\nhe gave new and striking arguments to prove the existence of God, and\nhumbled himself before the Jesuits, he was condemned by Catholics and\nProtestants alike. Since Roger Bacon, perhaps, no great thinker had been\nso completely abased and thwarted by theological oppression.\n\nNear the close of the same century another great thinker, Leibnitz,\nthough not propounding any full doctrine on evolution, gave it an\nimpulse by suggesting a view contrary to the sacrosanct belief in the\nimmutability of species--that is, to the pious doctrine that every\nspecies in the animal kingdom now exists as it left the hands of the\nCreator, the naming process by Adam, and the door of Noah's ark.\n\nHis punishment at the hands of the Church came a few years later, when,\nin 1712, the Jesuits defeated his attempt to found an Academy of Science\nat Vienna. The imperial authorities covered him with honours, but the\npriests--ruling in the confessionals and pulpits--would not allow\nhim the privilege of aiding his fellow-men to ascertain God's truths\nrevealed in Nature.\n\nSpinoza, Hume, and Kant may also be mentioned as among those whose\nthinking, even when mistaken, might have done much to aid in the\ndevelopment of a truer theory had not the theologic atmosphere of their\ntimes been so unpropitious; but a few years after Leibnitz's death came\nin France a thinker in natural science of much less influence than any\nof these, who made a decided step forward.\n\nEarly in the eighteenth century Benoist de Maillet, a man of the world,\nbut a wide observer and close thinker upon Nature, began meditating\nespecially upon the origin of animal forms, and was led into the idea of\nthe transformation of species and so into a theory of evolution, which\nin some important respects anticipated modern ideas. He definitely,\nthough at times absurdly, conceived the production of existing species\nby the modification of their predecessors, and he plainly accepted one\nof the fundamental maxims of modern geology--that the structure of the\nglobe must be studied in the light of the present course of Nature.\n\nBut he fell between two ranks of adversaries. On one side, the Church\nauthorities denounced him as a freethinker; on the other, Voltaire\nridiculed him as a devotee. Feeling that his greatest danger was from\nthe orthodox theologians, De Maillet endeavoured to protect himself\nby disguising his name in the title of his book, and by so wording its\npreface and dedication that, if persecuted, he could declare it a mere\nsport of fancy; he therefore announced it as the reverie of a Hindu sage\nimparted to a Christian missionary. But this strategy availed nothing:\nhe had allowed his Hindu sage to suggest that the days of creation named\nin Genesis might be long periods of time; and this, with other ideas of\nequally fearful import, was fatal. Though the book was in type in 1735,\nit was not published till 1748--three years after his death.\n\nOn the other hand, the heterodox theology of Voltaire was also aroused;\nand, as De Maillet had seen in the presence of fossils on high mountains\na proof that these mountains were once below the sea, Voltaire,\nrecognising in this an argument for the deluge of Noah, ridiculed the\nnew thinker without mercy. Unfortunately, some of De Maillet's vagaries\nlent themselves admirably to Voltaire's sarcasm; better material for it\ncould hardly be conceived than the theory, seriously proposed, that the\nfirst human being was born of a mermaid.\n\nHence it was that, between these two extremes of theology, De Maillet\nreceived no recognition until, very recently, the greatest men of\nscience in England and France have united in giving him his due. But\nhis work was not lost, even in his own day; Robinet and Bonnet pushed\nforward victoriously on helpful lines.\n\nIn the second half of the eighteenth century a great barrier was thrown\nacross this current--the authority of Linnaeus. He was the most eminent\nnaturalist of his time, a wide observer, a close thinker; but the\natmosphere in which he lived and moved and had his being was saturated\nwith biblical theology, and this permeated all his thinking.\n\nHe who visits the tomb of Linnaeus to-day, entering the beautiful\ncathedral of Upsala by its southern porch, sees above it, wrought in\nstone, the Hebrew legend of creation. In a series of medallions, the\nAlmighty--in human form--accomplishes the work of each creative day. In\ndue order he puts in place the solid firmament with the waters above it,\nthe sun, moon, and stars within it, the beasts, birds, and plants below\nit, and finishes his task by taking man out of a little hillock of \"the\nearth beneath,\" and woman out of man's side. Doubtless Linnaeus, as he\nwent to his devotions, often smiled at this childlike portrayal. Yet\nhe was never able to break away from the idea it embodied. At times, in\nface of the difficulties which beset the orthodox theory, he ventured\nto favour some slight concessions. Toward the end of his life he timidly\nadvanced the hypothesis that all the species of one genus constituted\nat the creation one species; and from the last edition of his Systema\nNaturae he quietly left out the strongly orthodox statement of the\nfixity of each species, which he had insisted upon in his earlier works.\nBut he made no adequate declaration. What he might expect if he openly\nand decidedly sanctioned a newer view he learned to his cost; warnings\ncame speedily both from the Catholic and Protestant sides.\n\nAt a time when eminent prelates of the older Church were eulogizing\ndebauched princes like Louis XV, and using the unspeakably obscene\ncasuistry of the Jesuit Sanchez in the education of the priesthood as to\nthe relations of men to women, the modesty of the Church authorities was\nso shocked by Linnaeus's proofs of a sexual system in plants that for\nmany years his writings were prohibited in the Papal States and in\nvarious other parts of Europe where clerical authority was strong enough\nto resist the new scientific current. Not until 1773 did one of the\nmore broad-minded cardinals--Zelanda--succeed in gaining permission that\nProf. Minasi should discuss the Linnaean system at Rome.\n\nAnd Protestantism was quite as oppressive. In a letter to Eloius,\nLinnaeus tells of the rebuke given to science by one of the great\nLutheran prelates of Sweden, Bishop Svedberg. From various parts of\nEurope detailed statements had been sent to the Royal Academy of Science\nthat water had been turned into blood, and well-meaning ecclesiastics\nhad seen in this an indication of the wrath of God, certainly against\nthe regions in which these miracles had occurred and possibly against\nthe whole world. A miracle of this sort appearing in Sweden, Linnaeus\nlooked into it carefully and found that the reddening of the water\nwas caused by dense masses of minute insects. News of this explanation\nhaving reached the bishop, he took the field against it; he denounced\nthis scientific discovery as \"a Satanic abyss\" (abyssum Satanae), and\ndeclared \"The reddening of the water is NOT natural,\" and \"when God\nallows such a miracle to take place Satan endeavours, and so do his\nungodly, self-reliant, self-sufficient, and worldly tools, to make it\nsignify nothing.\" In face of this onslaught Linnaeus retreated; he tells\nhis correspondent that \"it is difficult to say anything in this matter,\"\nand shields himself under the statement \"It is certainly a miracle that\nso many millions of creatures can be so suddenly propagated,\" and \"it\nshows undoubtedly the all-wise power of the Infinite.\"\n\nThe great naturalist, grown old and worn with labours for science, could\nno longer resist the contemporary theology; he settled into obedience\nto it, and while the modification of his early orthodox view was, as we\nhave seen, quietly imbedded in the final edition of his great work, he\nmade no special effort to impress it upon the world. To all appearance\nhe continued to adhere to the doctrine that all existing species had\nbeen created by the Almighty \"in the beginning,\" and that since \"the\nbeginning\" no new species had appeared.\n\nYet even his great authority could not arrest the swelling tide;\nmore and more vast became the number of species, more and more\nincomprehensible under the old theory became the newly ascertained\nfacts in geographical distribution, more and more it was felt that the\nuniverse and animated beings had come into existence by some process\nother than a special creation \"in the beginning,\" and the question was\nconstantly pressing, \"By WHAT process?\"\n\nThroughout the whole of the eighteenth century one man was at work on\nnatural history who might have contributed much toward an answer to this\nquestion: this man was Buffon. His powers of research and thought were\nremarkable, and his gift in presenting results of research and thought\nshowed genius. He had caught the idea of an evolution in Nature by the\nvariation of species, and was likely to make a great advance with it;\nbut he, too, was made to feel the power of theology.\n\nAs long as he gave pleasing descriptions of animals the Church petted\nhim, but when he began to deduce truths of philosophical import the\nbatteries of the Sorbonne were opened upon him; he was made to know that\n\"the sacred deposit of truth committed to the Church\" was, that \"in the\nbeginning God made the heavens and the earth\" and that \"all things were\nmade at the beginning of the world.\" For his simple statement of truths\nin natural science which are to-day truisms, he was, as we have seen,\ndragged forth by the theological faculty, forced to recant publicly, and\nto print his recantation. In this he announced, \"I abandon everything in\nmy book respecting the formation of the earth, and generally all which\nmay be contrary to the narrative of Moses.\"(21)\n\n\n     (21) For Descartes and his relation to the Copernican theory, see\nSaisset, Descartes et ses Precurseurs; also Fouillee, Descartes, Paris,\n1893, chaps. ii and iii; also other authorities cited in my chapter\non Astronomy; for his relation to the theory of evolution, see the\nPrincipes de Philosophie, 3eme partie, S 45. For de Maillet, see\nQuatrefages, Darwin et ses Precurseurs francais, chap i, citing\nD'Archiac, Paleontologie, Stratigraphie, vol. i; also, Perrier, La\nPhilosophie zoologique avant Darwin, chap. vi; also the admirable\narticle Evolution, by Huxley, in Ency. Brit. The title of De Maillet's\nbook is Telliamed, ou Entretiens d'un Philosophe indien avec un\nMissionaire francais sur la Diminution de la Mer, 1748, 1756. For\nBuffon, see the authorities previously given, also the chapter on\nGeology in this work. For the resistance of both Catholic and Protestant\nauthorities to the Linnaean system and ideas, see Alberg, Life of\nLinnaeus, London, 1888, pp. 143-147, and 237. As to the creation\nmedallions at the Cathedral of Upsala, it is a somewhat curious\ncoincidence that the present writer came upon them while visiting that\nedifice during the preparation of this chapter.\n\n\nBut all this triumph of the Chaldeo-Babylonian creation legends which\nthe Church had inherited availed but little.\n\nFor about the end of the eighteenth century fruitful suggestions and\neven clear presentations of this or that part of a large evolutionary\ndoctrine came thick and fast, and from the most divergent quarters.\nEspecially remarkable were those which came from Erasmus Darwin in\nEngland, from Maupertuis in France, from Oken in Switzerland, and from\nHerder, and, most brilliantly of all, from Goethe in Germany.\n\nTwo men among these thinkers must be especially mentioned--Treviranus in\nGermany and Lamarck in France; each independently of the other drew the\nworld more completely than ever before in this direction.\n\nFrom Treviranus came, in 1802, his work on biology, and in this he gave\nforth the idea that from forms of life originally simple had arisen all\nhigher organizations by gradual development; that every living feature\nhas a capacity for receiving modifications of its structure from\nexternal influences; and that no species had become really extinct, but\nthat each had passed into some other species. From Lamarck came\nabout the same time his Researches, and a little later his Zoological\nPhilosophy, which introduced a new factor into the process of\nevolution--the action of the animal itself in its efforts toward a\ndevelopment to suit new needs--and he gave as his principal conclusions\nthe following:\n\n1. Life tends to increase the volume of each living body and of all its\nparts up to a limit determined by its own necessities.\n\n2. New wants in animals give rise to new organs.\n\n3. The development of these organs is in proportion to their employment.\n\n4. New developments may be transmitted to offspring.\n\nHis well-known examples to illustrate these views, such as that of\nsuccessive generations of giraffes lengthening their necks by stretching\nthem to gather high-growing foliage, and of successive generations of\nkangaroos lengthening and strengthening their hind legs by the necessity\nof keeping themselves erect while jumping, provoked laughter, but\nthe very comicality of these illustrations aided to fasten his main\nconclusion in men's memories.\n\nIn both these statements, imperfect as they were, great truths were\nembodied--truths which were sure to grow.\n\nLamarck's declaration, especially, that the development of organs is in\nratio to their employment, and his indications of the reproduction\nin progeny of what is gained or lost in parents by the influence of\ncircumstances, entered as a most effective force into the development of\nthe evolution theory.\n\nThe next great successor in the apostolate of this idea of the universe\nwas Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. As early as 1795 he had begun to form a\ntheory that species are various modifications of the same type, and this\ntheory he developed, testing it at various stages as Nature was more\nand more displayed to him. It fell to his lot to bear the brunt in a\nstruggle against heavy odds which lasted many years.\n\nFor the man who now took up the warfare, avowedly for science\nbut unconsciously for theology, was the foremost naturalist then\nliving--Cuvier. His scientific eminence was deserved; the highest\nhonours of his own and other countries were given him, and he bore\nthem worthily. An Imperial Councillor under Napoleon; President of the\nCouncil of Public Instruction and Chancellor of the University under\nthe restored Bourbons; Grand Officer of the Legion of Honour, a Peer of\nFrance, Minister of the Interior, and President of the Council of State\nunder Louis Philippe; he was eminent in all these capacities, and yet\nthe dignity given by such high administrative positions was as nothing\ncompared to his leadership in natural science. Science throughout the\nworld acknowledged in him its chief contemporary ornament, and to this\nhour his fame rightly continues. But there was in him, as in Linnaeus,\na survival of certain theological ways of looking at the universe and\ncertain theological conceptions of a plan of creation; it must be said,\ntoo, that while his temperament made him distrust new hypotheses, of\nwhich he had seen so many born and die, his environment as a great\nfunctionary of state, honoured, admired, almost adored by the greatest,\nnot only in the state but in the Church, his solicitude lest science\nshould receive some detriment by openly resisting the Church, which\nhad recaptured Europe after the French Revolution, and had made of its\nenemies its footstool--all these considerations led him to oppose the\nnew theory. Amid the plaudits, then, of the foremost church-men he\nthrew across the path of the evolution doctrines the whole mass of\nhis authority in favour of the old theory of catastrophic changes and\nspecial creations.\n\nGeoffroy Saint-Hilaire stoutly withstood him, braving non-recognition,\nill-treatment, and ridicule. Treviranus, afar off in his mathematical\nlecture-room at Bremen, seemed simply forgotten.\n\nBut the current of evolutionary thought could not thus be checked:\ndammed up for a time, it broke out in new channels and in ways and\nplaces least expected; turned away from France, it appeared especially\nin England, where great paleontologists and geologists arose whose work\nculminated in that of Lyell. Specialists throughout all the world now\nbecame more vigorous than ever, gathering facts and thinking upon them\nin a way which caused the special creation theory to shrink more and\nmore. Broader and more full became these various rivulets, soon to unite\nin one great stream of thought.\n\nIn 1813 Dr. Wells developed a theory of evolution by natural selection\nto account for varieties in the human race. About 1820 Dean Herbert,\neminent as an authority in horticulture, avowed his conviction that\nspecies are but fixed varieties. In 1831 Patrick Matthews stumbled upon\nand stated the main doctrine of natural selection in evolution; and\nothers here and there, in Europe and America, caught an inkling of it.\n\nBut no one outside of a circle apparently uninfluential cared for\nthese things: the Church was serene: on the Continent it had obtained\nreactionary control of courts, cabinets, and universities; in England,\nDean Cockburn was denouncing Mary Somerville and the geologists to the\ndelight of churchmen; and the Rev. Mellor Brown was doing the same thing\nfor the edification of dissenters.\n\nIn America the mild suggestions of Silliman and his compeers were met\nby the protestations of the Andover theologians headed by Moses Stuart.\nNeither of the great English universities, as a rule, took any notice of\nthe innovators save by sneers.\n\nTo this current of thought there was joined a new element when, in\n1844, Robert Chambers published his Vestiges of Creation. The book was\nattractive and was widely read. In Chambers's view the several series of\nanimated beings, from the simplest and oldest up to the highest and most\nrecent, were the result of two distinct impulses, each given once and\nfor all time by the Creator. The first of these was an impulse imparted\nto forms of life, lifting them gradually through higher grades; the\nsecond was an impulse tending to modify organic substances in accordance\nwith external circumstances; in fact, the doctrine of the book was\nevolution tempered by miracle--a stretching out of the creative act\nthrough all time--a pious version of Lamarck.\n\nTwo results followed, one mirth-provoking, the other leading to serious\nthought. The amusing result was that the theologians were greatly\nalarmed by the book: it was loudly insisted that it promoted atheism.\nLooking back along the line of thought which has since been developed,\none feels that the older theologians ought to have put up thanksgivings\nfor Chambers's theory, and prayers that it might prove true. The\nmore serious result was that it accustomed men's minds to a belief in\nevolution as in some form possible or even probable. In this way it was\nprovisionally of service.\n\nEight years later Herbert Spencer published an essay contrasting the\ntheories of creation and evolution--reasoning with great force in favour\nof the latter, showing that species had undoubtedly been modified by\ncircumstances; but still only few and chosen men saw the significance\nof all these lines of reasoning which had been converging during so many\nyears toward one conclusion.\n\nOn July 1, 1858, there were read before the Linnaean Society at London\ntwo papers--one presented by Charles Darwin, the other by Alfred Russel\nWallace--and with the reading of these papers the doctrine of evolution\nby natural selection was born. Then and there a fatal breach was made in\nthe great theological barrier of the continued fixity of species since\nthe creation.\n\nThe story of these papers the scientific world knows by heart: how\nCharles Darwin, having been sent to the University of Cambridge to\nfit him for the Anglican priesthood, left it in 1831 to go upon the\nscientific expedition of the Beagle; how for five years he studied with\nwonderful vigour and acuteness the problems of life as revealed on\nland and at sea--among volcanoes and coral reefs, in forests and on the\nsands, from the tropics to the arctic regions; how, in the Cape Verde\nand the Galapagos Islands, and in Brazil, Patagonia, and Australia\nhe interrogated Nature with matchless persistency and skill; how he\nreturned unheralded, quietly settled down to his work, and soon set the\nworld thinking over its first published results, such as his book on\nCoral Reefs, and the monograph on the Cirripedia; and, finally, how he\npresented his paper, and followed it up with treatises which made him\none of the great leaders in the history of human thought.\n\nThe scientific world realizes, too, more and more, the power of\ncharacter shown by Darwin in all this great career; the faculty of\nsilence, the reserve of strength seen in keeping his great thought--his\nidea of evolution by natural selection--under silent study and\nmeditation for nearly twenty years, giving no hint of it to the world\nat large, but working in every field to secure proofs or disproofs,\nand accumulating masses of precious material for the solution of the\nquestions involved.\n\nTo one man only did he reveal his thought--to Dr. Joseph Hooker, to\nwhom in 1844, under the seal of secrecy, he gave a summary of his\nconclusions. Not until fourteen years later occurred the event which\nshowed him that the fulness of time had come--the letter from Alfred\nRussel Wallace, to whom, in brilliant researches during the decade from\n1848 to 1858, in Brazil and in the Malay Archipelago, the same truth of\nevolution by natural selection had been revealed. Among the proofs that\nscientific study does no injury to the more delicate shades of sentiment\nis the well-known story of this letter. With it Wallace sent Darwin a\nmemoir, asking him to present it to the Linnaean Society: on examining\nit, Darwin found that Wallace had independently arrived at conclusions\nsimilar to his own--possibly had deprived him of fame; but Darwin was\nloyal to his friend, and his friend remained ever loyal to him. He\npublicly presented the paper from Wallace, with his own conclusions; and\nthe date of this presentation--July 1, 1858--separates two epochs in the\nhistory, not merely of natural science, but of human thought.\n\nIn the following year, 1859, came the first instalment of his work in\nits fuller development--his book on The Origin of Species. In this\nbook one at least of the main secrets at the heart of the evolutionary\nprocess, which had baffled the long line of investigators and\nphilosophers from the days of Aristotle, was more broadly revealed. The\neffective mechanism of evolution was shown at work in three ascertained\nfacts: in the struggle for existence among organized beings; in the\nsurvival of the fittest; and in heredity. These facts were presented\nwith such minute research, wide observation, patient collation,\ntransparent honesty, and judicial fairness, that they at once commanded\nthe world's attention. It was the outcome of thirty years' work and\nthought by a worker and thinker of genius, but it was yet more than\nthat--it was the outcome, also, of the work and thought of another man\nof genius fifty years before. The book of Malthus on the Principle\nof Population, mainly founded on the fact that animals increase in a\ngeometrical ratio, and therefore, if unchecked, must encumber the earth,\nhad been generally forgotten, and was only recalled with a sneer. But\nthe genius of Darwin recognised in it a deeper meaning, and now the\nthought of Malthus was joined to the new current. Meditating upon it in\nconnection with his own observations of the luxuriance of Nature, Darwin\nhad arrived at his doctrine of natural selection and survival of the\nfittest.\n\nAs the great dogmatic barrier between the old and new views of the\nuniverse was broken down, the flood of new thought pouring over the\nworld stimulated and nourished strong growths in every field of research\nand reasoning: edition after edition of the book was called for; it\nwas translated even into Japanese and Hindustani; the stagnation of\nscientific thought, which Buckle, only a few years before, had so deeply\nlamented, gave place to a widespread and fruitful activity; masses of\naccumulated observations, which had seemed stale and unprofitable,\nwere made alive; facts formerly without meaning now found their\ninterpretation. Under this new influence an army of young men took\nup every promising line of scientific investigation in every land.\nEpoch-making books appeared in all the great nations. Spencer, Wallace,\nHuxley, Galton, Tyndall, Tylor, Lubbock, Bagehot, Lewes, in England,\nand a phalanx of strong men in Germany, Italy, France, and America gave\nforth works which became authoritative in every department of biology.\nIf some of the older men in France held back, overawed perhaps by the\nauthority of Cuvier, the younger and more vigorous pressed on.\n\nOne source of opposition deserves to be especially mentioned--Louis\nAgassiz.\n\nA great investigator, an inspired and inspiring teacher, a noble man, he\nhad received and elaborated a theory of animated creation which he could\nnot readily change. In his heart and mind still prevailed the atmosphere\nof the little Swiss parsonage in which he was born, and his religious\nand moral nature, so beautiful to all who knew him, was especially\nrepelled by sundry evolutionists, who, in their zeal as neophytes, made\nproclamations seeming to have a decidedly irreligious if not immoral\nbearing. In addition to this was the direction his thinking had received\nfrom Cuvier. Both these influences combined to prevent his acceptance of\nthe new view.\n\nHe was the third great man who had thrown his influence as a barrier\nacross the current of evolutionary thought. Linnaeus in the second half\nof the eighteenth century, Cuvier in the first half, and Agassiz in the\nsecond half of the nineteenth--all made the same effort. Each remains\ngreat; but not all of them together could arrest the current. Agassiz's\nstrong efforts throughout the United States, and indeed throughout\nEurope, to check it, really promoted it. From the great museum he had\nfounded at Cambridge, from his summer school at Penikese, from his\nlecture rooms at Harvard and Cornell, his disciples went forth full of\nlove and admiration for him, full of enthusiasm which he had stirred\nand into fields which he had indicated; but their powers, which he had\naroused and strengthened, were devoted to developing the truth he failed\nto recognise; Shaler, Verrill, Packard, Hartt, Wilder, Jordan, with a\nmultitude of others, and especially the son who bore his honoured name,\ndid justice to his memory by applying what they had received from him to\nresearch under inspiration of the new revelation.\n\nStill another man deserves especial gratitude and honour in this\nprogress--Edward Livingston Youmans. He was perhaps the first in America\nto recognise the vast bearings of the truths presented by Darwin,\nWallace, and Spencer. He became the apostle of these truths, sacrificing\nthe brilliant career on which he had entered as a public lecturer,\nsubordinating himself to the three leaders, and giving himself to\neditorial drudgery in the stimulation of research and the announcement\nof results.\n\nIn support of the new doctrine came a world of new proofs; those which\nDarwin himself added in regard to the cross-fertilization of plants,\nand which he had adopted from embryology, led the way, and these were\nfollowed by the discoveries of Wallace, Bates, Huxley, Marsh, Cope,\nLeidy, Haeckel, Muller, Gaudry, and a multitude of others in all\nlands.(22)\n\n\n     (22) For Agassiz's opposition to evolution, see the Essay on\nClassification, vol. i, 1857, as regards Lamark, and vol. iii, as\nregards Darwin; also Silliman's Journal, July 1860; also the Atlantic\nMonthly, January 1874; also his Life and Correspondence, vol. ii, p.\n647; also Asa Gray, Scientific Papers, vol. ii, p. 484. A reminiscence\nof my own enables me to appreciate his deep ethical and religious\nfeeling. I was passing the day with him at Nahant in 1868, consulting\nhim regarding candidates for various scientific chairs at the newly\nestablished Cornell University, in which he took a deep interest. As we\ndiscussed one after another of the candidates, he suddenly said: \"Who is\nto be your Professor of Moral Philosophy? That is a far more important\nposition than all the others.\"\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE FINAL EFFORT OF THEOLOGY.\n\nDarwin's Origin of Species had come into the theological world like\na plough into an ant-hill. Everywhere those thus rudely awakened from\ntheir old comfort and repose had swarmed forth angry and confused.\nReviews, sermons, books light and heavy, came flying at the new thinker\nfrom all sides.\n\nThe keynote was struck at once in the Quarterly Review by Wilberforce,\nBishop of Oxford. He declared that Darwin was guilty of \"a tendency to\nlimit God's glory in creation\"; that \"the principle of natural selection\nis absolutely incompatible with the word of God\"; that it \"contradicts\nthe revealed relations of creation to its Creator\"; that it is\n\"inconsistent with the fulness of his glory\"; that it is \"a dishonouring\nview of Nature\"; and that there is \"a simpler explanation of the\npresence of these strange forms among the works of God\": that\nexplanation being--\"the fall of Adam.\" Nor did the bishop's efforts end\nhere; at the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement\nof Science he again disported himself in the tide of popular applause.\nReferring to the ideas of Darwin, who was absent on account of illness,\nhe congratulated himself in a public speech that he was not descended\nfrom a monkey. The reply came from Huxley, who said in substance: \"If\nI had to choose, I would prefer to be a descendant of a humble monkey\nrather than of a man who employs his knowledge and eloquence in\nmisrepresenting those who are wearing out their lives in the search for\ntruth.\"\n\nThis shot reverberated through England, and indeed through other\ncountries.\n\nThe utterances of this the most brilliant prelate of the Anglican Church\nreceived a sort of antiphonal response from the leaders of the English\nCatholics. In an address before the \"Academia,\" which had been organized\nto combat \"science falsely so called,\" Cardinal Manning declared his\nabhorrence of the new view of Nature, and described it as \"a brutal\nphilosophy--to wit, there is no God, and the ape is our Adam.\"\n\nThese attacks from such eminent sources set the clerical fashion for\nseveral years. One distinguished clerical reviewer, in spite of Darwin's\nthirty years of quiet labour, and in spite of the powerful summing up\nof his book, prefaced a diatribe by saying that Darwin \"might have been\nmore modest had he given some slight reason for dissenting from\nthe views generally entertained.\" Another distinguished clergyman,\nvice-president of a Protestant institute to combat \"dangerous\" science,\ndeclared Darwinism \"an attempt to dethrone God.\" Another critic spoke of\npersons accepting the Darwinian views as \"under the frenzied inspiration\nof the inhaler of mephitic gas,\" and of Darwin's argument as \"a jungle\nof fanciful assumption.\" Another spoke of Darwin's views as suggesting\nthat \"God is dead,\" and declared that Darwin's work \"does open violence\nto everything which the Creator himself has told us in the Scriptures\nof the methods and results of his work.\" Still another theological\nauthority asserted: \"If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a\nlie, the whole framework of the book of life falls to pieces, and the\nrevelation of God to man, as we Christians know it, is a delusion and\na snare.\" Another, who had shown excellent qualities as an observing\nnaturalist, declared the Darwinian view \"a huge imposture from the\nbeginning.\"\n\nEchoes came from America. One review, the organ of the most widespread\nof American religious sects, declared that Darwin was \"attempting to\nbefog and to pettifog the whole question\"; another denounced Darwin's\nviews as \"infidelity\"; another, representing the American branch of\nthe Anglican Church, poured contempt over Darwin as \"sophistical and\nillogical,\" and then plunged into an exceedingly dangerous line of\nargument in the following words: \"If this hypothesis be true, then is\nthe Bible an unbearable fiction;... then have Christians for nearly two\nthousand years been duped by a monstrous lie.... Darwin requires us to\ndisbelieve the authoritative word of the Creator.\" A leading journal\nrepresenting the same church took pains to show the evolution theory to\nbe as contrary to the explicit declarations of the New Testament as to\nthose of the Old, and said: \"If we have all, men and monkeys, oysters\nand eagles, developed from an original germ, then is St. Paul's grand\ndeliverance--'All flesh is not the same flesh; there is one kind of\nflesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes, and another of\nbirds'--untrue.\"\n\nAnother echo came from Australia, where Dr. Perry, Lord Bishop of\nMelbourne, in a most bitter book on Science and the Bible, declared that\nthe obvious object of Chambers, Darwin, and Huxley is \"to produce in\ntheir readers a disbelief of the Bible.\"\n\nNor was the older branch of the Church to be left behind in this chorus.\nBayma, in the Catholic World, declared, \"Mr. Darwin is, we have reason\nto believe, the mouthpiece or chief trumpeter of that infidel clique\nwhose well-known object is to do away with all idea of a God.\"\n\nWorthy of especial note as showing the determination of the theological\nside at that period was the foundation of sacro-scientific organizations\nto combat the new ideas. First to be noted is the \"Academia,\" planned by\nCardinal Wiseman. In a circular letter the cardinal, usually so moderate\nand just, sounded an alarm and summed up by saying, \"Now it is for the\nChurch, which alone possesses divine certainty and divine discernment,\nto place itself at once in the front of a movement which threatens even\nthe fragmentary remains of Christian belief in England.\" The necessary\npermission was obtained from Rome, the Academia was founded, and the\n\"divine discernment\" of the Church was seen in the utterances which\ncame from it, such as those of Cardinal Manning, which every thoughtful\nCatholic would now desire to recall, and in the diatribes of Dr. Laing,\nwhich only aroused laughter on all sides. A similar effort was seen in\nProtestant quarters; the \"Victoria institute\" was created, and perhaps\nthe most noted utterance which ever came from it was the declaration of\nits vice-president, the Rev. Walter Mitchell, that \"Darwinism endeavours\nto dethrone God.\"(23)\n\n\n     (23) For Wilberforce's article, see Quarterly Review, July, 1860. For\nthe reply of Huxley to the bishop's speech I have relied on the account\ngiven in Quatrefages, who had it from Carpenter; a somewhat different\nversion is given in the Life and Letters of Darwin. For Cardinal\nManning's attack, see Essays on Religion and Literature, London, 1865.\nFor the review articles, see the Quarterly already cited, and that\nfor July, 1874; also the North British Review, May 1860; also, F. O.\nMorris's letter in the Record, reprinted at Glasgow, 1870; also the\nAddresses of Rev. Walter Mitchell before the Victoria Institute, London,\n1867; also Rev. B. G. Johns, Moses not Darwin, a Sermon, March 31, 1871.\nFor the earlier American attacks, see Methodist Quarterly Review, April\n1871; The American Church Review, July and October, 1865, and January,\n1866. For the Australian attack, see Science and the Bible, by the Right\nReverend Charles Perry, D. D., Bishop of Melbourne, London, 1869. For\nBayma, see the Catholic World, vol. xxvi, p.782. For the Academia, see\nEssays edited by Cardinal Manning, above cited; and for the Victoria\nInstitute, see Scientia Scientarum, by a member of the Victoria\nInstitute, London, 1865.\n\n\nIn France the attack was even more violent. Fabre d'Envieu brought\nout the heavy artillery of theology, and in a long series of elaborate\npropositions demonstrated that any other doctrine than that of the\nfixity and persistence of species is absolutely contrary to Scripture.\nThe Abbe Desorges, a former Professor of Theology, stigmatized Darwin as\na \"pedant,\" and evolution as \"gloomy\". Monseigneur Segur, referring\nto Darwin and his followers, went into hysterics and shrieked: \"These\ninfamous doctrines have for their only support the most abject\npassions. Their father is pride, their mother impurity, their offspring\nrevolutions. They come from hell and return thither, taking with them\nthe gross creatures who blush not to proclaim and accept them.\"\n\nIn Germany the attack, if less declamatory, was no less severe. Catholic\ntheologians vied with Protestants in bitterness. Prof. Michelis declared\nDarwin's theory \"a caricature of creation.\" Dr. Hagermann asserted that\nit \"turned the Creator out of doors.\"\n\nDr. Schund insisted that \"every idea of the Holy Scriptures, from\nthe first to the last page, stands in diametrical opposition to\nthe Darwinian theory\"; and, \"if Darwin be right in his view of the\ndevelopment of man out of a brutal condition, then the Bible teaching in\nregard to man is utterly annihilated.\" Rougemont in Switzerland called\nfor a crusade against the obnoxious doctrine. Luthardt, Professor of\nTheology at Leipsic, declared: \"The idea of creation belongs to religion\nand not to natural science; the whole superstructure of personal\nreligion is built upon the doctrine of creation\"; and he showed the\nevolution theory to be in direct contradiction to Holy Writ.\n\nBut in 1863 came an event which brought serious confusion to the\ntheological camp: Sir Charles Lyell, the most eminent of living\ngeologists, a man of deeply Christian feeling and of exceedingly\ncautious temper, who had opposed the evolution theory of Lamarck\nand declared his adherence to the idea of successive creations, then\npublished his work on the Antiquity of Man, and in this and other\nutterances showed himself a complete though unwilling convert to the\nfundamental ideas of Darwin. The blow was serious in many ways, and\nespecially so in two--first, as withdrawing all foundation in fact from\nthe scriptural chronology, and secondly, as discrediting the creation\ntheory. The blow was not unexpected; in various review articles against\nthe Darwinian theory there had been appeals to Lyell, at times almost\npiteous, \"not to flinch from the truths he had formerly proclaimed.\" But\nLyell, like the honest man he was, yielded unreservedly to the mass of\nnew proofs arrayed on the side of evolution against that of creation.\n\nAt the same time came Huxley's Man's Place in Nature, giving new and\nmost cogent arguments in favour of evolution by natural selection.\n\nIn 1871 was published Darwin's Descent of Man. Its doctrine had been\nanticipated by critics of his previous books, but it made, none the\nless, a great stir; again the opposing army trooped forth, though\nevidently with much less heart than before. A few were very violent.\nThe Dublin University Magazine, after the traditional Hibernian fashion,\ncharged Mr. Darwin with seeking \"to displace God by the unerring action\nof vagary,\" and with being \"resolved to hunt God out of the world.\" But\nmost notable from the side of the older Church was the elaborate\nanswer to Darwin's book by the eminent French Catholic physician, Dr.\nConstantin James. In his work, On Darwinism, or the Man-Ape, published\nat Paris in 1877, Dr. James not only refuted Darwin scientifically but\npoured contempt on his book, calling it \"a fairy tale,\" and insisted\nthat a work \"so fantastic and so burlesque\" was, doubtless, only a huge\njoke, like Erasmus's Praise of Folly, or Montesquieu's Persian Letters.\nThe princes of the Church were delighted. The Cardinal Archbishop\nof Paris assured the author that the book had become his \"spiritual\nreading,\" and begged him to send a copy to the Pope himself. His\nHoliness, Pope Pius IX, acknowledged the gift in a remarkable letter. He\nthanked his dear son, the writer, for the book in which he \"refutes\nso well the aberrations of Darwinism.\" \"A system,\" His Holiness adds,\n\"which is repugnant at once to history, to the tradition of all peoples,\nto exact science, to observed facts, and even to Reason herself, would\nseem to need no refutation, did not alienation from God and the leaning\ntoward materialism, due to depravity, eagerly seek a support in all this\ntissue of fables.... And, in fact, pride, after rejecting the Creator of\nall things and proclaiming man independent, wishing him to be his own\nking, his own priest, and his own God--pride goes so far as to degrade\nman himself to the level of the unreasoning brutes, perhaps even of\nlifeless matter, thus unconsciously confirming the Divine declaration,\nWHEN PRIDE COMETH, THEN COMETH SHAME. But the corruption of this age,\nthe machinations of the perverse, the danger of the simple, demand that\nsuch fancies, altogether absurd though they are, should--since they\nborrow the mask of science--be refuted by true science.\" Wherefore the\nPope thanked Dr. James for his book, \"so opportune and so perfectly\nappropriate to the exigencies of our time,\" and bestowed on him the\napostolic benediction. Nor was this brief all. With it there came\na second, creating the author an officer of the Papal Order of St.\nSylvester. The cardinal archbishop assured the delighted physician that\nsuch a double honour of brief and brevet was perhaps unprecedented, and\nsuggested only that in a new edition of his book he should \"insist a\nlittle more on the relation existing between the narratives of Genesis\nand the discoveries of modern science, in such fashion as to convince\nthe most incredulous of their perfect agreement.\" The prelate urged also\na more dignified title. The proofs of this new edition were accordingly\nall submitted to His Eminence, and in 1882 it appeared as Moses and\nDarwin: the Man of Genesis compared with the Man-Ape, or Religious\nEducation opposed to Atheistic. No wonder the cardinal embraced the\nauthor, thanking him in the name of science and religion. \"We have at\nlast,\" he declared, \"a handbook which we can safely put into the hands\nof youth.\"\n\nScarcely less vigorous were the champions of English Protestant\northodoxy. In an address at Liverpool, Mr. Gladstone remarked: \"Upon\nthe grounds of what is termed evolution God is relieved of the labour\nof creation; in the name of unchangeable laws he is discharged from\ngoverning the world\"; and, when Herbert Spencer called his attention\nto the fact that Newton with the doctrine of gravitation and with the\nscience of physical astronomy is open to the same charge, Mr. Gladstone\nretreated in the Contemporary Review under one of his characteristic\nclouds of words. The Rev. Dr. Coles, in the British and Foreign\nEvangelical Review, declared that the God of evolution is not the\nChristian's God. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, in a sermon preached before\nthe University of Oxford, pathetically warned the students that \"those\nwho refuse to accept the history of the creation of our first parents\naccording to its obvious literal intention, and are for substituting the\nmodern dream of evolution in its place, cause the entire scheme of man's\nsalvation to collapse.\" Dr. Pusey also came into the fray with most\nearnest appeals against the new doctrine, and the Rev. Gavin Carlyle\nwas perfervid on the same side. The Society for Promoting Christian\nKnowledge published a book by the Rev. Mr. Birks, in which the evolution\ndoctrine was declared to be \"flatly opposed to the fundamental doctrine\nof creation.\" Even the London Times admitted a review stigmatizing\nDarwin's Descent of Man as an \"utterly unsupported hypothesis,\" full of\n\"unsubstantiated premises, cursory investigations, and disintegrating\nspeculations,\" and Darwin himself as \"reckless and unscientific.\"(24)\n\n\n     (24) For the French theological opposition to the Darwinian theory, see\nPozzy, La Terre at le Recit Biblique de la Creation, 1874, especially\npp. 353, 363; also Felix Ducane, Etudes sur la Transformisme, 1876,\nespecially pp. 107 to 119. As to Fabre d'Envieu, see especially\nhis Proposition xliii. For the Abbe Desogres, \"former Professor of\nPhilosophy and Theology,\" see his Erreurs Modernes, Paris, 1878, pp. 677\nand 595 to 598. For Monseigneur Segur, see his La Foi devant la Science\nModerne, sixth ed., Paris, 1874, pp. 23, 34, etc. For Herbert Spencer's\nreply to Mr. Gladstone, see his study of Sociology; for the passage in\nthe Dublin Review, see the issue for July, 1871. For the Review in the\nLondon Times, see Nature for April 20, 1871. For Gavin Carlyle, see The\nBattle of Unbelief, 1870, pp. 86 and 171. For the attacks by Michelis\nand Hagermann, see Natur und Offenbarung, Munster, 1861 to 1869. For\nSchund, see his Darwin's Hypothese und ihr Verhaaltniss zu Religion\nund Moral, Stuttgart, 1869. For Luthardt, see Fundamental Truths of\nChristianity, translated by Sophia Taylor, second ed., Edinburgh, 1869.\nFor Rougemont, see his L'Homme et le Singe, Neuchatel, 1863 (also\nin German trans.). For Constantin James, see his Mes Entretiens avec\nl'Empereur Don Pedro sur la Darwinisme, Paris, 1888, where the papal\nbriefs are printed in full. For the English attacks on Darwin's Descent\nof Man, see the Edinburgh Review July, 1871 and elsewhere; the Dublin\nReview, July, 1871; the British and Foreign Evangelical Review, April,\n1886. See also The Scripture Doctrine of Creation, by the Rev. T.\nR. Birks, London, 1873, published by the S. P. C. K. For Dr. Pusey's\nattack, see his Unscience, not Science, adverse to Faith, 1878; also\nDarwin's Life and Letters, vol. ii, pp. 411, 412.\n\n\nBut it was noted that this second series of attacks, on the Descent\nof Man, differed in one remarkable respect--so far as England was\nconcerned--from those which had been made over ten years before on the\nOrigin of Species. While everything was done to discredit Darwin, to\npour contempt upon him, and even, of all things in the world, to make\nhim--the gentlest of mankind, only occupied with the scientific side of\nthe problem--\"a persecutor of Christianity,\" while his followers were\nrepresented more and more as charlatans or dupes, there began to be in\nthe most influential quarters careful avoidance of the old argument that\nevolution--even by natural selection--contradicts Scripture.\n\nIt began to be felt that this was dangerous ground. The defection of\nLyell had, perhaps, more than anything else, started the question among\ntheologians who had preserved some equanimity, \"WHAT IF, AFTER ALL, THE\nDARWINIAN THEORY SHOULD PROVE TO BE TRUE?\" Recollections of the position\nin which the Roman Church found itself after the establishment of the\ndoctrines of Copernicus and Galileo naturally came into the minds of\nthe more thoughtful. In Germany this consideration does not seem to\nhave occurred at quite so early a day. One eminent Lutheran clergyman at\nMagdeburg called on his hearers to choose between Darwin and religion;\nDelitszch, in his new commentary on Genesis, attempted to bring science\nback to recognise human sin as an important factor in creation; Prof.\nHeinrich Ewald, while carefully avoiding any sharp conflict between the\nscriptural doctrine and evolution, comforted himself by covering Darwin\nand his followers with contempt; Christlieb, in his address before the\nEvangelical Alliance at New York in 1873, simply took the view that\nthe tendencies of the Darwinian theory were \"toward infidelity,\" but\ndeclined to make any serious battle on biblical grounds; the Jesuit,\nFather Pesch, in Holland, drew up in Latin, after the old scholastic\nmanner, a sort of general indictment of evolution, of which one may say\nthat it was interesting--as interesting as the display of a troop in\nchain armour and with cross-bows on a nineteenth-century battlefield.\n\nFrom America there came new echoes. Among the myriad attacks on the\nDarwinian theory by Protestants and Catholics two should be especially\nmentioned. The first of these was by Dr. Noah Porter, President of\nYale College, an excellent scholar, an interesting writer, a noble\nman, broadly tolerant, combining in his thinking a curious mixture\nof radicalism and conservatism. While giving great latitude to the\nevolutionary teaching in the university under his care, he felt it his\nduty upon one occasion to avow his disbelief in it; but he was too wise\na man to suggest any necessary antagonism between it and the Scriptures.\nHe confined himself mainly to pointing out the tendency of the evolution\ndoctrine in this form toward agnosticism and pantheism.\n\nTo those who knew and loved him, and had noted the genial way in which\nby wise neglect he had allowed scientific studies to flourish at Yale,\nthere was an amusing side to all this. Within a stone's throw of his\ncollege rooms was the Museum of Paleontology, in which Prof. Marsh\nhad laid side by side, among other evidences of the new truth, that\nwonderful series of specimens showing the evolution of the horse from\nthe earliest form of the animal, \"not larger than a fox, with five\ntoes,\" through the whole series up to his present form and size--that\nseries which Huxley declared an absolute proof of the existence of\nnatural selection as an agent in evolution. In spite of the veneration\nand love which all Yale men felt for President Porter, it was hardly\nto be expected that these particular arguments of his would have much\npermanent effect upon them when there was constantly before their eyes\nso convincing a refutation.\n\nBut a far more determined opponent was the Rev. Dr. Hodge, of Princeton;\nhis anger toward the evolution doctrine was bitter: he denounced it as\nthoroughly \"atheistic\"; he insisted that Christians \"have a right to\nprotest against the arraying of probabilities against the clear evidence\nof the Scriptures\"; he even censured so orthodox a writer as the Duke of\nArgyll, and declared that the Darwinian theory of natural selection is\n\"utterly inconsistent with the Scriptures,\" and that \"an absent God, who\ndoes nothing, is to us no God\"; that \"to ignore design as manifested in\nGod's creation is to dethrone God\"; that \"a denial of design in Nature\nis virtually a denial of God\"; and that \"no teleologist can be a\nDarwinian.\" Even more uncompromising was another of the leading\nauthorities at the same university--the Rev. Dr. Duffield. He declared\nwar not only against Darwin but even against men like Asa Gray, Le\nConte, and others, who had attempted to reconcile the new theory with\nthe Bible: he insisted that \"evolutionism and the scriptural account of\nthe origin of man are irreconcilable\"--that the Darwinian theory is\n\"in direct conflict with the teaching of the apostle, 'All scripture\nis given by inspiration of God'\"; he pointed out, in his opposition to\nDarwin's Descent of Man and Lyell's Antiquity of Man, that in the Bible\n\"the genealogical links which connect the Israelites in Egypt with\nAdam and Eve in Eden are explicitly given.\" These utterances of Prof.\nDuffield culminated in a declaration which deserves to be cited as\nshowing that a Presbyterian minister can \"deal damnation round the land\"\nex cathedra in a fashion quite equal to that of popes and bishops. It is\nas follows: \"If the development theory of the origin of man,\" wrote\nDr. Duffield in the Princeton Review, \"shall in a little while take\nits place--as doubtless it will--with other exploded scientific\nspeculations, then they who accept it with its proper logical\nconsequences will in the life to come have their portion with those who\nin this life 'know not God and obey not the gospel of his Son.'\"\n\nFortunately, at about the time when Darwin's Descent of Man was\npublished, there had come into Princeton University \"deus ex machina\"\nin the person of Dr. James McCosh. Called to the presidency, he at once\ntook his stand against teachings so dangerous to Christianity as those\nof Drs. Hodge, Duffield, and their associates. In one of his personal\nconfidences he has let us into the secret of this matter. With that hard\nScotch sense which Thackeray had applauded in his well-known verses, he\nsaw that the most dangerous thing which could be done to Christianity\nat Princeton was to reiterate in the university pulpit, week after week,\nsolemn declarations that if evolution by natural selection, or indeed\nevolution at all, be true, the Scriptures are false. He tells us that he\nsaw that this was the certain way to make the students unbelievers;\nhe therefore not only checked this dangerous preaching but preached an\nopposite doctrine. With him began the inevitable compromise, and, in\nspite of mutterings against him as a Darwinian, he carried the day.\nWhatever may be thought of his general system of philosophy, no one can\ndeny his great service in neutralizing the teachings of his predecessors\nand colleagues--so dangerous to all that is essential in Christianity.\n\nOther divines of strong sense in other parts of the country began to\ntake similar ground--namely, that men could be Christians and at the\nsame time Darwinians. There appeared, indeed, here and there, curious\ndiscrepancies: thus in 1873 the Monthly Religious Magazine of Boston\ncongratulated its readers that the Rev. Mr. Burr had \"demolished the\nevolution theory, knocking the breath of life out of it and throwing it\nto the dogs.\" This amazing performance by the Rev. Mr. Burr was repeated\nin a very striking way by Bishop Keener before the Oecumenical Council\nof Methodism at Washington in 1891. In what the newspapers described\nas an \"admirable speech,\" he refuted evolution doctrines by saying that\nevolutionists had \"only to make a journey of twelve hours from the place\nwhere he was then standing to find together the bones of the muskrat,\nthe opossum, the coprolite, and the ichthyosaurus.\" He asserted that\nAgassiz--whom the good bishop, like so many others, seemed to think\nan evolutionist--when he visited these beds near Charleston, declared:\n\"These old beds have set me crazy; they have destroyed the work of a\nlifetime.\" And the Methodist prelate ended by saying: \"Now, gentlemen,\nbrethren, take these facts home with you; get down and look at them.\nThis is the watch that was under the steam hammer--the doctrine of\nevolution; and this steam hammer is the wonderful deposit of the Ashley\nbeds.\" Exhibitions like these availed little. While the good bishop amid\nvociferous applause thus made comically evident his belief that Agassiz\nwas a Darwinian and a coprolite an animal, scientific men were recording\nin all parts of the world facts confirming the dreaded theory of an\nevolution by natural selection. While the Rev. Mr. Burr was so loudly\npraised for \"throwing Darwinism to the dogs,\" Marsh was completing his\nseries leading from the five-toed ungulates to the horse. While Dr.\nTayler Lewis at Union, and Drs. Hodge and Duffield at Princeton, were\nshowing that if evolution be true the biblical accounts must be false,\nthe indefatigable Yale professor was showing his cretaceous birds, and\namong them Hesperornis and Ichthyornis with teeth. While in Germany\nLuthardt, Schund, and their compeers were demonstrating that Scripture\nrequires a belief in special and separate creations, the Archaeopteryx,\nshowing a most remarkable connection between birds and reptiles, was\ndiscovered.\n\nWhile in France Monseigneur Segur and others were indulging in diatribes\nagainst \"a certain Darwin,\" Gaudry and Filhol were discovering a\nstriking series of \"missing links\" among the carnivora. In view of the\nproofs accumulating in favour of the new evolutionary hypothesis, the\nchange in the tone of controlling theologians was now rapid. From all\nsides came evidences of desire to compromise with the theory. Strict\nadherents of the biblical text pointed significantly to the verses in\nGenesis in which the earth and sea were made to bring forth birds and\nfishes, and man was created out of the dust of the ground. Men of larger\nmind like Kingsley and Farrar, with English and American broad churchmen\ngenerally, took ground directly in Darwin's favour. Even Whewell took\npains to show that there might be such a thing as a Darwinian argument\nfor design in Nature; and the Rev. Samuel Houghton, of the Royal\nSociety, gave interesting suggestions of a divine design in evolution.\n\nBoth the great English universities received the new teaching as a\nleaven: at Oxford, in the very front of the High Church party at Keble\nCollege, was elaborated a statement that the evolution doctrine is \"an\nadvance in our theological thinking.\" And Temple, Bishop of London,\nperhaps the most influential thinker then in the Anglican episcopate,\naccepted the new revelation in the following words: \"It seems something\nmore majestic, more befitting him to whom a thousand years are as one\nday, thus to impress his will once for all on his creation, and provide\nfor all the countless varieties by this one original impress, than\nby special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what he had\npreviously made.\"\n\nIn Scotland the Duke of Argyll, head and front of the orthodox party,\ndissenting in many respects from Darwin's full conclusions, made\nconcessions which badly shook the old position.\n\nCuriously enough, from the Roman Catholic Church, bitter as some of its\nwriters had been, now came argument to prove that the Catholic faith\ndoes not prevent any one from holding the Darwinian theory, and\nespecially a declaration from an authority eminent among American\nCatholics--a declaration which has a very curious sound, but which it\nwould be ungracious to find fault with--that \"the doctrine of evolution\nis no more in opposition to the doctrine of the Catholic Church than is\nthe Copernican theory or that of Galileo.\"\n\nHere and there, indeed, men of science like Dawson, Mivart, and Wigand,\nin view of theological considerations, sought to make conditions; but\nthe current was too strong, and eminent theologians in every country\naccepted natural selection as at least a very important part in the\nmechanism of evolution.\n\nAt the death of Darwin it was felt that there was but one place in\nEngland where his body should be laid, and that this place was next the\ngrave of Sir Isaac Newton in Westminster Abbey. The noble address of\nCanon Farrar at his funeral was echoed from many pulpits in Europe and\nAmerica, and theological opposition as such was ended. Occasionally\nappeared, it is true, a survival of the old feeling: the Rev. Dr. Laing\nreferred to the burial of Darwin in Westminster Abbey as \"a proof that\nEngland is no longer a Christian country,\" and added that this burial\nwas a desecration--that this honour was given him because he had been\n\"the chief promoter of the mock doctrine of evolution of the species and\nthe ape descent of man.\"\n\nStill another of these belated prophets was, of all men, Thomas Carlyle.\nSoured and embittered, in the same spirit which led him to find more\nheroism in a marauding Viking or in one of Frederick the Great's\ngenerals than in Washington, or Lincoln, or Grant, and which caused him\nto see in the American civil war only the burning out of a foul chimney,\nhe, with the petulance natural to a dyspeptic eunuch, railed at Darwin\nas an \"apostle of dirt worship.\"\n\nThe last echoes of these utterances reverberated between Scotland and\nAmerica. In the former country, in 1885, the Rev. Dr. Lee issued a\nvolume declaring that, if the Darwinian view be true, \"there is no place\nfor God\"; that \"by no method of interpretation can the language of Holy\nScripture be made wide enough to re-echo the orang-outang theory of\nman's natural history\"; that \"Darwinism reverses the revelation of God\"\nand \"implies utter blasphemy against the divine and human character of\nour Incarnate Lord\"; and he was pleased to call Darwin and his followers\n\"gospellers of the gutter.\" In one of the intellectual centres\nof America the editor of a periodical called The Christian urged\nfrantically that \"the battle be set in array, and that men find out\nwho is on the Lord's side and who is on the side of the devil and the\nmonkeys.\"\n\nTo the honour of the Church of England it should be recorded that a\nconsiderable number of her truest men opposed such utterances as these,\nand that one of them--Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster--made a protest\nworthy to be held in perpetual remembrance. While confessing his own\ninability to accept fully the new scientific belief, he said: \"We should\nconsider it disgraceful and humiliating to try to shake it by an\nad captandum argument, or by a clap-trap platform appeal to the\nunfathomable ignorance and unlimited arrogance of a prejudiced assembly.\nWe should blush to meet it with an anathema or a sneer.\"\n\nAll opposition had availed nothing; Darwin's work and fame were secure.\nAs men looked back over his beautiful life--simple, honest, tolerant,\nkindly--and thought upon his great labours in the search for truth, all\nthe attacks faded into nothingness.\n\nThere were indeed some dark spots, which as time goes on appear darker.\nAt Trinity College, Cambridge, Whewell, the \"omniscient,\" author of the\nHistory of the Inductive Sciences, refused to allow a copy of the Origin\nof Species to be placed in the library. At multitudes of institutions\nunder theological control--Protestant as well as Catholic--attempts were\nmade to stamp out or to stifle evolutionary teaching. Especially was\nthis true for a time in America, and the case of the American College\nat Beyrout, where nearly all the younger professors were dismissed for\nadhering to Darwin's views, is worthy of remembrance. The treatment of\nDr. Winchell at the Vanderbilt University in Tennessee showed the same\nspirit; one of the truest of men, devoted to science but of deeply\nChristian feeling, he was driven forth for views which centred in the\nDarwinian theory.\n\nStill more striking was the case of Dr. Woodrow. He had, about 1857,\nbeen appointed to a professorship of Natural Science as connected with\nRevealed Religion, in the Presbyterian Seminary at Columbia, South\nCarolina. He was a devoted Christian man, and his training had led him\nto accept the Presbyterian standards of faith. With great gifts\nfor scientific study he visited Europe, made a most conscientious\nexamination of the main questions under discussion, and adopted the\nchief points in the doctrine of evolution by natural selection. A\nstruggle soon began. A movement hostile to him grew more and more\ndetermined, and at last, in spite of the efforts made in his behalf by\nthe directors of the seminary and by a large and broad-minded minority\nin the representative bodies controlling it, an orthodox storm, raised\nby the delegates from various Presbyterian bodies, drove him from\nhis post. Fortunately, he was received into a professorship at the\nUniversity of South Carolina, where he has since taught with more power\nthan ever before.\n\nThis testimony to the faith by American provincial Protestantism was\nvery properly echoed from Spanish provincial Catholicism. In the year\n1878 a Spanish colonial man of science, Dr. Chil y Marango, published a\nwork on the Canary Islands. But Dr. Chil had the imprudence to sketch,\nin his introduction, the modern hypothesis of evolution, and to exhibit\nsome proofs, found in the Canary Islands, of the barbarism of primitive\nman. The ecclesiastical authorities, under the lead of Bishop Urquinaona\ny Bidot, at once grappled with this new idea. By a solemn act they\ndeclared it \"falsa, impia, scandalosa\"; all persons possessing copies\nof the work were ordered to surrender them at once to the\nproper ecclesiastics, and the author was placed under the major\nexcommunication.\n\nBut all this opposition may be reckoned among the last expiring\nconvulsions of the old theologic theory. Even from the new Catholic\nUniversity at Washington has come an utterance in favour of the new\ndoctrine, and in other universities in the Old World and in the New the\ndoctrine of evolution by natural selection has asserted its right to\nfull and honest consideration. More than this, it is clearly evident\nthat the stronger men in the Church have, in these latter days, not\nonly relinquished the struggle against science in this field, but have\ndetermined frankly and manfully to make an alliance with it. In two\nvery remarkable lectures given in 1892 at the parish church of Rochdale,\nWilson, Archdeacon of Manchester, not only accepted Darwinism as true,\nbut wrought it with great argumentative power into a higher view of\nChristianity; and what is of great significance, these sermons were\npublished by the same Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge\nwhich only a few years before had published the most bitter attacks\nagainst the Darwinian theory. So, too, during the year 1893, Prof. Henry\nDrummond, whose praise is in all the dissenting churches, developed a\nsimilar view most brilliantly in a series of lectures delivered before\nthe American Chautauqua schools, and published in one of the most\nwidespread of English orthodox newspapers.\n\nWhatever additional factors may be added to natural selection--and\nDarwin himself fully admitted that there might be others--the theory of\nan evolution process in the formation of the universe and of animated\nnature is established, and the old theory of direct creation is gone\nforever. In place of it science has given us conceptions far more noble,\nand opened the way to an argument for design infinitely more beautiful\nthan any ever developed by theology.(24)\n\n\n     (24) For the causes of bitterness shown regarding the Darwinian\nhypothesis, see Reusch, Bibel und Natur, vol. ii, pp. 46 et seq. For\nhostility in the United States regarding the Darwinian theory, see,\namong a multitude of writers, the following: Dr. Charles Hodge, of\nPrinceton, monograph, What is Darwinism? New York, 1874; also his\nSystematic Theology, New York, 1872, vol. ii, part 2, Anthropology; also\nThe Light by which we see Light, or Nature and the Scriptures, Vedder\nLectures, 1875, Rutgers College, New York, 1875; also Positivism and\nEvolutionism, in the American Catholic Quarterly, October 1877, pp. 607,\n619; and in the same number, Professor Huxley and Evolution, by Rev. A.\nM. Kirsch, pp. 662, 664; The Logic of Evolution, by Prof. Edward F. X.\nMcSweeney, D. D., July, 1879, p. 561; Das Hexaemeron und die Geologie,\nvon P. Eirich, Pastor in Albany, N. Y., Lutherischer Concordia-Verlag,\nSt. Louis, Mo., 1878, pp. 81, 82, 84, 92-94; Evolutionism respecting\nMan and the Bible, by John T. Duffield, of Princeton, January, 1878,\nPrinceton Review, pp. 151, 153, 154, 158, 159, 160, 188; a Lecture on\nEvolution, before the Nineteenth Century Club of New York, May 25, 1886,\nby ex-President Noah Porter, pp. 4, 26-29. For the laudatory notice of\nthe Rev. E. F. Burr's demolition of evolution in his book Pater Mundi,\nsee Monthly Religious Magazine, Boston, May, 1873, p. 492. Concerning\nthe removal of Dr. James Woodrow, Professor of Natural Science in the\nColumbia Theological Seminary, see Evolution or Not, in the New York\nWeekly Sun, October 24, 1888. For the dealings of Spanish\necclesiastics with Dr. Chil and his Darwinian exposition, see the Revue\nd'Anthropologie, cited in the Academy for April 6, 1878; see also the\nCatholic World, xix, 433, A Discussion with an Infidel, directed against\nDr. Louis Buchner and his Kraft und Stoff; also Mind and Matter, by Rev.\njames Tait, of Canada, p. 66 (in the third edition the author bemoans\nthe \"horrible plaudits\" that \"have accompanied every effort to establish\nman's brutal descent\"); also The Church Journal, New York, May 28, 1874.\nFor the effort in favour of a teleological evolution, see Rev. Samuel\nHoughton, F. R. S., Principles of Animal Mechanics, London, 1873,\npreface and p. 156 and elsewhere. For the details of the persecutions\nof Drs. Winchell and Woodrow, and of the Beyrout professors, with\nauthorities cited, see my chapter on The Fall of Man and Anthropology.\nFor more liberal views among religious thinkers regarding the Darwinian\ntheory, and for efforts to mitigate and adapt it to theological\nviews, see, among the great mass of utterances, the following: Charles\nKingsley's letters to Darwin, November 18, 1859, in Darwin's Life and\nLetters, vol. ii, p. 82; Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin, December 24,\n1859, see ibid., vol. ii, pp. 356-359; the same to Miss Gerard, January\n2, 1860, see Sedgewick's Life and Letters, vol. ii, pp. 359, 360; the\nsame in The Spectator, London, March 24, 1860; The Rambler, March 1860,\ncited by Mivart, Genesis of Species, p. 30; The Dublin Review, May,\n1860; The Christian Examiner, May, 1860; Charles Kingsley to F. D.\nMaurice in 1863, in Kingsley's Life, vol. ii, p. 171; Adam Sedgwick\nto Livingstone (the explorer), March 16, 1865, in Life and Letters of\nSedgwick, vol. ii, pp. 410-412; the Duke of Argyll, The Reign of Law,\nNew York, pp. 16, 18, 31, 116, 117, 120, 159; Joseph P. Thompson, D. D.,\nLL.D., Man in Genesis and Geology, New York, 1870, pp. 48, 49, 82; Canon\nH. P. Liddon, Sermons preached before the University of Oxford,\n1871, Sermon III; St. George Mivart, Evolution and its Consequences,\nContemporary Review, Jan. 1872; British and Foreign Evangelical Review,\n1872, article on The Theory of Evolution; The Lutheran Quarterly,\nGettysburg, Pa., April, 1872, article by Rev. Cyrus Thomas, Assistant\nUnited States Geological Survey on The Descent of Man, pp. 214, 239,\n372-376; The Lutheran Quarterly, July, 1873, article on Some Assumptions\nagainst Christianity, by Rev. C. A. Stork, Baltimore, Md., pp. 325, 326;\nalso, in the same number, see a review of Dr. Burr's Pater Mundi, pp.\n474, 475, and contrast with the review in the Andover Review of that\nperiod; an article in the Religious Magazine and Monthly Review, Boston,\non Religion and Evolution, by Rev. S. R. Calthrop, September, 1873,\np. 200; The Popular Science Monthly, January, 1874, article Genesis,\nGeology, and Evolution; article by Asa Gray, Nature, London, June 4,\n1874; Materialism, by Rev. W. Streissguth, Lutheran Quarterly, July,\n1875, originally written in German, and translated by J. G. Morris,\nD. D., pp. 406, 408; Darwinismus und Christenthum, von R. Steck, Ref.\nPfarrer in Dresden, Berlin, 1875, pp. 5,6, and 26, reprinted from\nthe Protestantische Kirchenzeitung, and issued as a tract by the\nProtestantenverein; Rev. W. E. Adams, article in the Lutheran Quarterly,\nApril, 1879, on Evolution: Shall it be Atheistic? John Wood, Bible\nAnticipations of Modern Science, 1880, pp. 18, 19, 22; Lutheran\nQuarterly, January, 1881, Some Postulates of the New Ethics, by Rev.\nC. A. Stork, D. D.; Lutheran Quarterly, January, 1882, The Religion of\nEvolution as against the Religion of Jesus, by Prof. W. H. Wynn, Iowa\nState Agricultural College--this article was republished as a pamphlet;\nCanon Liddon, prefatory note to sermon on The Recovery of St. Thomas,\npp. 4, 11, 12, 13, and 26, preached in St. Paul's Cathedral, April 23,\n1882; Lutheran Quarterly, January 1882, Evolution and the Scripture, by\nRev. John A. Earnest, pp. 101, 105; Glimpses in the Twilight, by Rev.\nF. G. Lee, D. D., Edinburgh, 1885, especially pp. 18 and 19; the Hibbert\nLectures for 1883, by Rev. Charles Beard, pp. 392, 393, et seq.; F.\nW. Farrar, D. D., Canon of Westminster, The History of Interpretation,\nbeing the Bampton Lectures for 1885, pp. 426, 427; Bishop Temple,\nBampton Lectures, pp. 184-186; article Evolution in the Dictionary\nof Religion, edited by Rev. William Benham, 1887; Prof. Huxley, An\nEpiscopal Trilogy, Nineteenth Century, November, 1887--this article\ndiscusses three sermons delivered by the bishops of Carlisle, Bedford,\nand Manchester, in Manchester Cathedral, during the meeting of the\nBritish Association, September, 1887--these sermons were afterward\npublished in pamphlet form under the title The Advance of Science; John\nFiske, Darwinism, and Other Essays, Boston, 1888; Harriet Mackenzie,\nEvolution illuminating the Bible, London, 1891, dedicated to Prof.\nHuxley; H. E. Rye, Hulsean Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, The Early\nNarratives of Genesis, London, 1892, preface, pp. vii-ix, pp. 7, 9, 11;\nRev. G. M. Searle, of the Catholic University, Washington, article in\nthe Catholic World, November, 1892, pp. 223, 227, 229, 231; for the\nstatement from Keble College, see Rev. Mr. Illingworth, in Lux Mundi.\nFor Bishop Temple, see citation in Laing. For a complete and admirable\nacceptance of the evolutionary theory as lifting Christian doctrine and\npractice to a higher plane, with suggestions for a new theology, see two\nSermons by Archdeacon Wilson, of Manchester, S. P. C. K.. London,\nand Young & Co., New York, 1893; and for a characteristically lucid\nstatement of the most recent development of evolution doctrines, and the\nrelations of Spencer, Weismann, Galton, and others to them, see Lester\nF. Ward's Address as President of the Biological Society, Washington,\n1891; also, recent articles in the leading English reviews. For a\nbrilliant glorification of evolution by natural selection as a doctrine\nnecessary to then highest and truest view of Christianity, see Prof.\nDrummond's Chautauqua Lectures, published in the British Weekly, London,\nfrom April 20 to May 11, 1893.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.  GEOGRAPHY.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE FORM OF THE EARTH.\n\nAmong various rude tribes we find survivals of a primitive idea that the\nearth is a flat table or disk, ceiled, domed, or canopied by the sky,\nand that the sky rests upon the mountains as pillars. Such a belief is\nentirely natural; it conforms to the appearance of things, and hence at\na very early period entered into various theologies.\n\nIn the civilizations of Chaldea and Egypt it was very fully developed.\nThe Assyrian inscriptions deciphered in these latter years represent the\ngod Marduk as in the beginning creating the heavens and the earth: the\nearth rests upon the waters; within it is the realm of the dead; above\nit is spread \"the firmament\"--a solid dome coming down to the horizon on\nall sides and resting upon foundations laid in the \"great waters\" which\nextend around the earth.\n\nOn the east and west sides of this domed firmament are doors, through\nwhich the sun enters in the morning and departs at night; above it\nextends another ocean, which goes down to the ocean surrounding the\nearth at the horizon on all sides, and which is supported and kept away\nfrom the earth by the firmament. Above the firmament and the upper ocean\nwhich it supports is the interior of heaven.\n\nThe Egyptians considered the earth as a table, flat and oblong, the sky\nbeing its ceiling--a huge \"firmament\" of metal. At the four corners of\nthe earth were the pillars supporting this firmament, and on this solid\nsky were the \"waters above the heavens.\" They believed that, when chaos\nwas taking form, one of the gods by main force raised the waters on high\nand spread them out over the firmament; that on the under side of this\nsolid vault, or ceiling, or firmament, the stars were suspended to light\nthe earth, and that the rains were caused by the letting down of the\nwaters through its windows. This idea and others connected with it seem\nto have taken strong hold of the Egyptian priestly caste, entering\ninto their theology and sacred science: ceilings of great temples, with\nstars, constellations, planets, and signs of the zodiac figured upon\nthem, remain to-day as striking evidences of this.\n\nIn Persia we have theories of geography based upon similar conceptions\nand embalmed in sacred texts.\n\nFrom these and doubtless from earlier sources common to them all came\ngeographical legacies to the Hebrews. Various passages in their sacred\nbooks, many of them noble in conception and beautiful in form, regarding\n\"the foundation of the earth upon the waters,\" \"the fountains of the\ngreat deep,\" \"the compass upon the face of the depth,\" the \"firmament,\"\nthe \"corners of the earth,\" the \"pillars of heaven,\" the \"waters above\nthe firmament,\" the \"windows of heaven,\" and \"doors of heaven,\" point us\nback to both these ancient springs of thought.(25)\n\n\n     (25) For survivals of the early idea, among the Eskimos, of the sky as\nsupported by mountains, and, among sundry Pacific islanders, of the sky\nas a firmament or vault of stone, see Tylor, Early History of Mankind,\nsecond edition, London, 1870, chap. xi; Spencer, Sociology, vol. i, chap\nvii, also Andrew Lang, La Mythologie, Paris, 1886, pp. 68-73. For the\nBabylonian theories, see George Smith's Chaldean Genesis, and especially\nthe German translation by Delitzsch, Leipsic, 1876; also, Jensen, Die\nKosmogonien der Babylonier, Strasburg, 1890; see especially in the\nappendices, pp. 9 and 10, a drawing representing the whole Babylonian\nscheme so closely followed in the Hebrew book Genesis. See also Lukas,\nDie Grundbegriffe in den Kosmogonien der alten Volker, Leipsic, 1893,\nfor a most thorough summing up of the whole subject, with texts showing\nthe development of Hebrew out of Chaldean and Egyptian conceptions, pp.\n44, etc.; also pp. 127 et seq. For the early view in India and\nPersia, see citations from the Vedas and the Zend-Avesta in Lethaby,\nArchitecture, Mysticism, and Myth, chap. i. For the Egyptian view, see\nChampollion; also Lenormant, Histoire Ancienne, Maspero, and others. As\nto the figures of the heavens upon the ceilings of Egyptian temples,\nsee Maspero, Archeologie Egyptienne, Paris, 1890; and for engravings of\nthem, see Lepsius, Denkmaler, vol. i, Bl. 41, and vol. ix, Abth. iv, Bl.\n35; also the Description de l'Egypte, published by order of Napoleon,\ntome ii, Pl. 14; also Prisse d'Avennes, Art Egyptien, Atlas, tome i, Pl.\n35; and especially for a survival at the Temple of Denderah, see Denon,\nVoyage en Egypte, Planches 129, 130. For the Egyptian idea of \"pillars\nof heaven,\" as alluded to on the stele of victory of Thotmes III,in the\nCairo Museum, see Ebers, Uarda, vol. ii, p. 175, note, Leipsic, 1877. For\na similar Babylonian belief, see Sayce's Herodotus, Appendix, p. 403.\nFor the belief of Hebrew scriptural writers in a solid \"firmament,\"\nsee especially Job, xxxviii, 18; also Smith's Bible Dictionary. For\nengravings showing the earth and heaven above it as conceived by\nEgyptians and Chaldeans, with \"pillars of heaven\" and \"firmament,\" see\nMaspero and Sayce, Dawn of Civilization, London, 1894, pp. 17 and 543.\n\n\nBut, as civilization was developed, there were evolved, especially among\nthe Greeks, ideas of the earth's sphericity. The Pythagoreans, Plato,\nand Aristotle especially cherished them. These ideas were vague, they\nwere mixed with absurdities, but they were germ ideas, and even amid the\nluxuriant growth of theology in the early Christian Church these germs\nbegan struggling into life in the minds of a few thinking men, and these\nmen renewed the suggestion that the earth is a globe.(26)\n\n\n     (26) The agency of the Pythagoreans in first spreading the doctrine of\nthe earth's sphericity is generally acknowledged, but the first full and\nclear utterance of it to the world was by Aristotle. Very fruitful, too,\nwas the statement of the new theory given by Plato in the Timaeus; see\nJowett's translation, 62, c. Also the Phaedo, pp.449 et seq. See also\nGrote on Plato's doctrine on the sphericity of the earth; also Sir G. C.\nLewis's Astronomy of the Ancients, London, 1862, chap. iii, section i,\nand note. Cicero's mention of the antipodes, and his reference to the\npassage in the Timaeus, are even more remarkable than the latter, in\nthat they much more clearly foreshadow the modern doctrine. See his\nAcademic Questions, ii; also Tusc. Quest., i and v, 24. For a very full\nsummary of the views of the ancients on the sphericity of the earth,\nsee Kretschmer, Die physische Erkunde im christlichen Mittelalter,\nWien, 1889, pp. 35 et seq.; also Eiken, Geschichte der mittelalterlichen\nWeltanschauung, Stuttgart, 1887, Dritter Theil, chap. vi. For citations\nand summaries, see Whewell, Hist. Induct. Sciences, vol. i, p. 189, and\nSt. Martin, Hist. de la Geog., Paris, 1873, p. 96; also Leopardi, Saggio\nsopra gli errori popolari degli antichi, Firenze, 1851, chap. xii, pp.\n184 et seq.\n\n\nA few of the larger-minded fathers of the Church, influenced possibly\nby Pythagorean traditions, but certainly by Aristotle and Plato, were\nwilling to accept this view, but the majority of them took fright at\nonce. To them it seemed fraught with dangers to Scripture, by which, of\ncourse, they meant their interpretation of Scripture. Among the first\nwho took up arms against it was Eusebius. In view of the New Testament\ntexts indicating the immediately approaching, end of the world, he\nendeavoured to turn off this idea by bringing scientific studies\ninto contempt. Speaking of investigators, he said, \"It is not through\nignorance of the things admired by them, but through contempt of their\nuseless labour, that we think little of these matters, turning our\nsouls to better things.\" Basil of Caesarea declared it \"a matter of no\ninterest to us whether the earth is a sphere or a cylinder or a disk, or\nconcave in the middle like a fan.\" Lactantius referred to the ideas\nof those studying astronomy as \"bad and senseless,\" and opposed the\ndoctrine of the earth's sphericity both from Scripture and reason.\nSt. John Chrysostom also exerted his influence against this scientific\nbelief; and Ephraem Syrus, the greatest man of the old Syrian Church,\nwidely known as the \"lute of the Holy Ghost,\" opposed it no less\nearnestly.\n\nBut the strictly biblical men of science, such eminent fathers and\nbishops as Theophilus of Antioch in the second century, and Clement of\nAlexandria in the third, with others in centuries following, were not\ncontent with merely opposing what they stigmatized as an old heathen\ntheory; they drew from their Bibles a new Christian theory, to which\none Church authority added one idea and another, until it was fully\ndeveloped. Taking the survival of various early traditions, given in\nthe seventh verse of the first chapter of Genesis, they insisted on the\nclear declarations of Scripture that the earth was, at creation, arched\nover with a solid vault, \"a firmament,\" and to this they added the\npassages from Isaiah and the Psalms, in which it declared that the\nheavens are stretched out \"like a curtain,\" and again \"like a tent to\ndwell in.\" The universe, then, is like a house: the earth is its ground\nfloor, the firmament its ceiling, under which the Almighty hangs out\nthe sun to rule the day and the moon and stars to rule the night. This\nceiling is also the floor of the apartment above, and in this is a\ncistern, shaped, as one of the authorities says, \"like a bathing-tank,\"\nand containing \"the waters which are above the firmament.\" These waters\nare let down upon the earth by the Almighty and his angels through the\n\"windows of heaven.\" As to the movement of the sun, there was a citation\nof various passages in Genesis, mixed with metaphysics in various\nproportions, and this was thought to give ample proofs from the Bible\nthat the earth could not be a sphere.(27)\n\n\n     (27) For Eusebius, see the Proep. Ev., xv, 61. For Basil, see the\nHexaemeron, Hom. ix. For Lactantius, see his Inst. Div., lib. iii, cap.\n3; also citations in Whewell, Hist. Induct. Sciences, London, 1857, vol.\ni, p. 194, and in St. Martin, Histoire de la Geographie, pp. 216, 217.\nFor the views of St. John Chrysostom, Ephraem Syrus, and other great\nchurchmen, see Kretschmer as above, chap i.\n\n\nIn the sixth century this development culminated in what was nothing\nless than a complete and detailed system of the universe, claiming to\nbe based upon Scripture, its author being the Egyptian monk Cosmas\nIndicopleustes. Egypt was a great treasure-house of theologic thought\nto various religions of antiquity, and Cosmas appears to have urged upon\nthe early Church this Egyptian idea of the construction of the world,\njust as another Egyptian ecclesiastic, Athanasius, urged upon the Church\nthe Egyptian idea of a triune deity ruling the world. According to\nCosmas, the earth is a parallelogram, flat, and surrounded by four seas.\nIt is four hundred days' journey long and two hundred broad. At the\nouter edges of these four seas arise massive walls closing in the whole\nstructure and supporting the firmament or vault of the heavens, whose\nedges are cemented to the walls. These walls inclose the earth and all\nthe heavenly bodies.\n\nThe whole of this theologico-scientific structure was built most\ncarefully and, as was then thought, most scripturally. Starting with the\nexpression applied in the ninth chapter of Hebrews to the tabernacle in\nthe desert, Cosmas insists, with other interpreters of his time, that it\ngives the key to the whole construction of the world. The universe\nis, therefore, made on the plan of the Jewish tabernacle--boxlike and\noblong. Going into details, he quotes the sublime words of Isaiah: \"It\nis He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth;... that stretcheth out\nthe heavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them out like a tent to dwell\nin\"; and the passage in Job which speaks of the \"pillars of heaven.\" He\nworks all this into his system, and reveals, as he thinks, treasures of\nscience.\n\nThis vast box is divided into two compartments, one above the other. In\nthe first of these, men live and stars move; and it extends up to the\nfirst solid vault, or firmament, above which live the angels, a main\npart of whose business it is to push and pull the sun and planets to and\nfro. Next, he takes the text, \"Let there be a firmament in the midst\nof the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters,\" and other\ntexts from Genesis; to these he adds the text from the Psalms, \"Praise\nhim, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens\"\nthen casts all, and these growths of thought into his crucible together,\nfinally brings out the theory that over this first vault is a vast\ncistern containing \"the waters.\" He then takes the expression in Genesis\nregarding the \"windows of heaven\" and establishes a doctrine regarding\nthe regulation of the rain, to the effect that the angels not only push\nand pull the heavenly bodies to light the earth, but also open and close\nthe heavenly windows to water it.\n\nTo understand the surface of the earth, Cosmas, following the methods\nof interpretation which Origen and other early fathers of the Church had\nestablished, studies the table of shew-bread in the Jewish tabernacle.\nThe surface of this table proves to him that the earth is flat, and\nits dimensions prove that the earth is twice as long as broad; its four\ncorners symbolize the four seasons; the twelve loaves of bread,\nthe twelve months; the hollow about the table proves that the ocean\nsurrounds the earth. To account for the movement of the sun, Cosmas\nsuggests that at the north of the earth is a great mountain, and that\nat night the sun is carried behind this; but some of the commentators\nventured to express a doubt here: they thought that the sun was pushed\ninto a pit at night and pulled out in the morning.\n\nNothing can be more touching in its simplicity than Cosmas's summing up\nof his great argument, He declares, \"We say therefore with Isaiah that\nthe heaven embracing the universe is a vault, with Job that it is joined\nto the earth, and with Moses that the length of the earth is greater\nthan its breadth.\" The treatise closes with rapturous assertions that\nnot only Moses and the prophets, but also angels and apostles, agree to\nthe truth of his doctrine, and that at the last day God will condemn all\nwho do not accept it.\n\nAlthough this theory was drawn from Scripture, it was also, as we have\nseen, the result of an evolution of theological thought begun long\nbefore the scriptural texts on which it rested were written. It was not\nat all strange that Cosmas, Egyptian as he was, should have received\nthis old Nile-born doctrine, as we see it indicated to-day in the\nstructure of Egyptian temples, and that he should have developed it by\nthe aid of the Jewish Scriptures; but the theological world knew nothing\nof this more remote evolution from pagan germs; it was received as\nvirtually inspired, and was soon regarded as a fortress of scriptural\ntruth. Some of the foremost men in the Church devoted themselves to\nbuttressing it with new texts and throwing about it new outworks of\ntheological reasoning; the great body of the faithful considered it a\ndirect gift from the Almighty. Even in the later centuries of the Middle\nAges John of San Geminiano made a desperate attempt to save it. Like\nCosmas, he takes the Jewish tabernacle as his starting-point, and shows\nhow all the newer ideas can be reconciled with the biblical accounts of\nits shape, dimensions, and furniture.(28)\n\n\n     (28) For a notice of the views of Cosmas in connection with those of\nLactantius, Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and others, see Schoell,\nHistoire de la Litterature Grecque, vol. vii, p. 37. The main scriptural\npassages referred to are as follows: (1) Isaiah xi, 22; (2) Genesis\ni, 6; (3) Genesis vii, 11; (4) Exodus xxiv, 10; (5) Job xxvi, 11, and\nxxxvii, 18 (6) Psalm cxlviii, 4, and civ, 9; (7) Ezekiel i, 22-26. For\nCosmas's theory, see Montfaucon, Collectio Nova Patrum, Paris, 1706,\nvol. ii, p.188; also pp. 298, 299. The text is illustrated with\nengravings showing walls and solid vault (firmament), with the whole\napparatus of \"fountains of the great deep,\" \"windows of heaven,\" angels,\nand the mountain behind which the sun is drawn. For reduction of one of\nthem, see Peschel, Gesschichte der Erdkunds, p. 98; also article\nMaps, in Knight's Dictionary of Mechanics, New York, 1875. For curious\ndrawings showing Cosmas's scheme in a different way from that given by\nMontfaucon, see extracts from a Vatican codex of the ninth century in\nGarucci, Storia de l'Arte Christiana, vol. iii, pp. 70 et seq. For\na good discussion of Cosmas's ideas, see Santarem, Hist. de la\nCosmographie, vol. ii, pp. 8 et seq., and for a very thorough discussion\nof its details, Kretschmer, as above. For still another theory, very\ndroll, and thought out on similar principles, see Mungo Park, cited\nin De Morgan, Paradoxes, p. 309. For Cosmas's joyful summing up, see\nMontfaucon, Collectio Nova Patrum, vol. ii, p. 255. For the curious\nsurvival in the thirteenth century of the old idea of the \"waters above\nthe heavens,\" see the story in Gervase of Tilbury, how in his time some\npeople coming out of church in England found an anchor let down by a\nrope out of the heavens, how there came voices from sailors above trying\nto loose the anchor, and, finally, how a sailor came down the rope,\nwho, on reaching the earth, died as if drowned in water. See Gervase of\nTilbury, Otia Imperialia, edit. Liebrecht, Hanover, 1856, Prima Decisio,\ncap. xiii. The work was written about 1211. For John of San Germiniano,\nsee his Summa de Exemplis, lib. ix, cap. 43. For the Egyptian\nTrinitarian views, see Sharpe, History of Egypt, vol. i, pp. 94, 102.\n\n\nFrom this old conception of the universe as a sort of house, with heaven\nas its upper story and the earth as its ground floor, flowed important\ntheological ideas into heathen, Jewish, and Christian mythologies.\nCommon to them all are legends regarding attempts of mortals to invade\nthe upper apartment from the lower. Of such are the Greek legends of\nthe Aloidae, who sought to reach heaven by piling up mountains, and were\ncast down; the Chaldean and Hebrew legends of the wicked who at Babel\nsought to build \"a tower whose top may reach heaven,\" which Jehovah\nwent down from heaven to see, and which he brought to naught by the\n\"confusion of tongues\"; the Hindu legend of the tree which sought to\ngrow into heaven and which Brahma blasted; and the Mexican legend of the\ngiants who sought to reach heaven by building the Pyramid of Cholula,\nand who were overthrown by fire from above.\n\nMyths having this geographical idea as their germ developed in\nluxuriance through thousands of years. Ascensions to heaven and descents\nfrom it, \"translations,\" \"assumptions,\" \"annunciations,\" mortals \"caught\nup\" into it and returning, angels flying between it and the earth,\nthunderbolts hurled down from it, mighty winds issuing from its corners,\nvoices speaking from the upper floor to men on the lower, temporary\nopenings of the floor of heaven to reveal the blessedness of the good,\n\"signs and wonders\" hung out from it to warn the wicked, interventions\nof every kind--from the heathen gods coming down on every sort of\nerrand, and Jehovah coming down to walk in Eden in the cool of the day,\nto St. Mark swooping down into the market-place of Venice to break the\nshackles of a slave--all these are but features in a vast evolution of\nmyths arising largely from this geographical germ.\n\nNor did this evolution end here. Naturally, in this view of things, if\nheaven was a loft, hell was a cellar; and if there were ascensions\ninto one, there were descents into the other. Hell being so near,\ninterferences by its occupants with the dwellers of the earth just above\nwere constant, and form a vast chapter in medieval literature. Dante\nmade this conception of the location of hell still more vivid, and we\nfind some forms of it serious barriers to geographical investigation.\nMany a bold navigator, who was quite ready to brave pirates and\ntempests, trembled at the thought of tumbling with his ship into one of\nthe openings into hell which a widespread belief placed in the Atlantic\nat some unknown distance from Europe. This terror among sailors was one\nof the main obstacles in the great voyage of Columbus. In a medieval\ntext-book, giving science the form of a dialogue, occur the following\nquestion and answer: \"Why is the sun so red in the evening?\" \"Because he\nlooketh down upon hell.\"\n\nBut the ancient germ of scientific truth in geography--the idea of the\nearth's sphericity--still lived. Although the great majority of the\nearly fathers of the Church, and especially Lactantius, had sought to\ncrush it beneath the utterances attributed to Isaiah, David, and\nSt. Paul, the better opinion of Eudoxus and Aristotle could not be\nforgotten. Clement of Alexandria and Origen had even supported it.\nAmbrose and Augustine had tolerated it, and, after Cosmas had held sway\na hundred years, it received new life from a great churchman of southern\nEurope, Isidore of Seville, who, however fettered by the dominant\ntheology in many other things, braved it in this. In the eighth century\na similar declaration was made in the north of Europe by another great\nChurch authority, Bede. Against the new life thus given to the old\ntruth, the sacred theory struggled long and vigorously but in vain.\nEminent authorities in later ages, like Albert the Great, St. Thomas\nAquinas, Dante, and Vincent of Beauvais, felt obliged to accept the\ndoctrine of the earth's sphericity, and as we approach the modern period\nwe find its truth acknowledged by the vast majority of thinking men. The\nReformation did not at first yield fully to this better theory. Luther,\nMelanchthon, and Calvin were very strict in their adherence to the exact\nletter of Scripture. Even Zwingli, broad as his views generally were,\nwas closely bound down in this matter, and held to the opinion of the\nfathers that a great firmament, or floor, separated the heavens from the\nearth; that above it were the waters and angels, and below it the earth\nand man.\n\nThe main scope given to independent thought on this general subject\namong the Reformers was in a few minor speculations regarding the\nuniverse which encompassed Eden, the exact character of the conversation\nof the serpent with Eve, and the like.\n\nIn the times immediately following the Reformation matters were even\nworse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became as\nsacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. When Calixt ventured,\nin interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that \"the\nwaters above the heavens\" were contained in a vast receptacle upheld by\na solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical.\n\nIn the latter part of the sixteenth century Musaeus interpreted the\naccounts in Genesis to mean that first God made the heavens for the roof\nor vault, and left it there on high swinging until three days later he\nput the earth under it. But the new scientific thought as to the earth's\nform had gained the day. The most sturdy believers were obliged to\nadjust their, biblical theories to it as best they could.(29)\n\n\n     (29) For a discussion of the geographical views of Isidore and Bede, see\nSantarem, Cosmographie, vol i, pp. 22-24. For the gradual acceptance\nof the idea of the earth's sphericity after the eighth century, see\nKretschmer, pp. 51 et seq., where citations from a multitude of authors\nare given. For the views of the Reformers, see Zockler, vol. i, pp. 679\nand 693. For Calixt, Musaeus, and others, ibid., pp. 673-677 and 761.\n\n\n\n\n\nII. THE DELINEATION OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nEvery great people of antiquity, as a rule, regarded its own central\ncity or most holy place as necessarily the centre of the earth.\n\nThe Chaldeans held that their \"holy house of the gods\" was the centre.\nThe Egyptians sketched the world under the form of a human figure,\nin which Egypt was the heart, and the centre of it Thebes. For the\nAssyrians, it was Babylon; for the Hindus, it was Mount Meru; for the\nGreeks, so far as the civilized world was concerned, Olympus or the\ntemple at Delphi; for the modern Mohammedans, it is Mecca and its sacred\nstone; the Chinese, to this day, speak of their empire as the \"middle\nkingdom.\" It was in accordance, then, with a simple tendency of human\nthought that the Jews believed the centre of the world to be Jerusalem.\n\nThe book of Ezekiel speaks of Jerusalem as in the middle of the earth,\nand all other parts of the world as set around the holy city. Throughout\nthe \"ages of faith\" this was very generally accepted as a direct\nrevelation from the Almighty regarding the earth's form. St. Jerome, the\ngreatest authority of the early Church upon the Bible, declared, on\nthe strength of this utterance of the prophet, that Jerusalem could\nbe nowhere but at the earth's centre; in the ninth century Archbishop\nRabanus Maurus reiterated the same argument; in the eleventh\ncentury Hugh of St. Victor gave to the doctrine another scriptural\ndemonstration; and Pope Urban, in his great sermon at Clermont urging\nthe Franks to the crusade, declared, \"Jerusalem is the middle point of\nthe earth\"; in the thirteenth century an ecclesiastical writer much in\nvogue, the monk Caesarius of Heisterbach, declared, \"As the heart in\nthe midst of the body, so is Jerusalem situated in the midst of our\ninhabited earth,\"--\"so it was that Christ was crucified at the centre\nof the earth.\" Dante accepted this view of Jerusalem as a certainty,\nwedding it to immortal verse; and in the pious book of travels ascribed\nto Sir John Mandeville, so widely read in the Middle Ages, it is\ndeclared that Jerusalem is at the centre of the world, and that a spear\nstanding erect at the Holy Sepulchre casts no shadow at the equinox.\n\nEzekiel's statement thus became the standard of orthodoxy to early\nmap-makers. The map of the world at Hereford Cathedral, the maps of\nAndrea Bianco, Marino Sanuto, and a multitude of others fixed this view\nin men's minds, and doubtless discouraged during many generations any\nscientific statements tending to unbalance this geographical centre\nrevealed in Scripture.(30)\n\n\n     (30) For beliefs of various nations of antiquity that the earth's center\nwas in their most sacred place, see citations from Maspero, Charton,\nSayce, and others in Lethaby, Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth, chap.\niv. As to the Greeks, we have typical statements in the Eumenides of\nAeschylus, where the stone in the altar at Delphi is repeatedly called\n\"the earth's navel\"--which is precisely the expression used regarding\nJerusalem in the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel (see below). The\nproof texts on which the mediaeval geographers mainly relied as to the\nform of the earth were Ezekiel v, 5, and xxxviii, 12. The progress\nof geographical knowledge evidently caused them to be softened down\nsomewhat in our King James's version; but the first of them reads, in\nthe Vulgate, \"Ista est Hierusalem, in medio gentium posui eam et in\ncircuitu ejus terrae\"; and the second reads, in the Vulgate, \"in medio\nterrae,\" and in the Septuagint, [Greek]. That the literal centre of the\nearth was understood, see proof in St. Jerome, Commentat. in Ezekiel,\nlib. ii; and for general proof, see Leopardi, Saggio sopra gli errori\npopolari degli antichi, pp. 207, 208. For Rabanus Maurus, see his De\nUniverso, lib. xii, cap. 4, in Migne, tome cxi, p. 339. For Hugh of\nSt. Victor, se his De Situ Terrarum, cap. ii. For Dante's belief, see\nInferno, canto xxxiv, 112-115:\n\n\"E se' or sotto l'emisperio giunto,  Ch' e opposito a quel che la gran secca\nCoverchia, e sotto il cui colmo consunto  Fu l'uom che nacque e visse senza pecca.\"\n\nFor orthodox geography in the Middle Ages, see Wright's Essays on\nArchaeology, vol. ii, chapter on the map of the world in Hereford\nCathedral; also the rude maps in Cardinal d'Ailly's Ymago Mundi; also\ncopies of maps of Marino Sanuto and others in Peschel, Erdkunde, p. 210;\nalso Munster, Fac Simile dell' Atlante di Andrea Bianco, Venezia, 1869.\nAnd for discussions of the whole subject, see Satarem, vol. ii, p. 295,\nvol. iii, pp. 71, 183, 184, and elsewhere. For a brief summary with\ncitations, see Eiken, Geschichte, etc., pp. 622, 623.\n\n\nNor did medieval thinkers rest with this conception. In accordance with\nthe dominant view that physical truth must be sought by theological\nreasoning, the doctrine was evolved that not only the site of the cross\non Calvary marked the geographical centre of the world, but that on this\nvery spot had stood the tree which bore the forbidden fruit in Eden.\nThus was geography made to reconcile all parts of the great theologic\nplan. This doctrine was hailed with joy by multitudes; and we find in\nthe works of medieval pilgrims to Palestine, again and again, evidence\nthat this had become precious truth to them, both in theology and\ngeography. Even as late as 1664 the eminent French priest Eugene Roger,\nin his published travels in Palestine, dwelt upon the thirty-eighth\nchapter of Ezekiel, coupled with a text from Isaiah, to prove that the\nexact centre of the earth is a spot marked on the pavement of the Church\nof the Holy Sepulchre, and that on this spot once stood the tree which\nbore the forbidden fruit and the cross of Christ.(31)\n\n\n     (31) For the site of the cross on Calvary, as the point where stood \"the\ntree of the knowledge of good and evil\" in Eden, at the centre of the\nearth, see various Eastern travellers cited in Tobler; but especially\nthe travels of Bishop Arculf in the Holy Land, in Wright's Early Travels\nin Palestine, p. 8; also Travels of Saewulf, ibid, p. 38; also Sir John\nMandeville, ibid., pp. 166, 167. For Roger, see his La Terre Saincte,\nParis, 1664, pp. 89-217, etc.; see also Quaresmio, Terrae Sanctae\nElucidatio, 1639, for similar view; and, for one narrative in which the\nidea was developed into an amazing mass of pious myths, see Pilgrimage\nof the Russian Abbot Daniel, edited by Sir C. W. Wilson, London, 1885,\np. 14. (The passage deserves to be quoted as an example of myth-making;\nit is as follows: \"At the time of our Lord's crucifixion, when he gave\nup the ghost on the cross, the veil of the temple was rent, and the rock\nabove Adam's skull opened, and the blood and water which flowed from\nChrist's side ran down through the fissure upon the skull, thus washing\naway the sins of men.\")\n\n\nNor was this the only misconception which forced its way from our sacred\nwritings into medieval map-making: two others were almost as marked.\nFirst of these was the vague terror inspired by Gog and Magog. Few\npassages in the Old Testament are more sublime than the denunciation\nof these great enemies by Ezekiel; and the well-known statement in the\nApocalypse fastened the Hebrew feeling regarding them with a new meaning\ninto the mind of the early Church: hence it was that the medieval\nmap-makers took great pains to delineate these monsters and their\nhabitations on the maps. For centuries no map was considered orthodox\nwhich did not show them.\n\nThe second conception was derived from the mention in our sacred books\nof the \"four winds.\" Hence came a vivid belief in their real existence,\nand their delineation on the maps, generally as colossal heads with\ndistended cheeks, blowing vigorously toward Jerusalem.\n\nAfter these conceptions had mainly disappeared we find here and there\nevidences of the difficulty men found in giving up the scriptural idea\nof direct personal interference by agents of Heaven in the ordinary\nphenomena of Nature: thus, in a noted map of the sixteenth century\nrepresenting the earth as a sphere, there is at each pole a crank, with\nan angel laboriously turning the earth by means of it; and, in another\nmap, the hand of the Almighty, thrust forth from the clouds, holds the\nearth suspended by a rope and spins it with his thumb and fingers.\nEven as late as the middle of the seventeenth century Heylin, the most\nauthoritative English geographer of the time, shows a like tendency to\nmix science and theology. He warps each to help the other, as follows:\n\"Water, making but one globe with the earth, is yet higher than it.\nThis appears, first, because it is a body not so heavy; secondly, it is\nobserved by sailors that their ships move faster to the shore than from\nit, whereof no reason can be given but the height of the water above the\nland; thirdly, to such as stand on the shore the sea seems to swell into\nthe form of a round hill till it puts a bound upon our sight. Now that\nthe sea, hovering thus over and above the earth, doth not overwhelm\nit, can be ascribed only to his Providence who 'hath made the waters to\nstand on an heap that they turn not again to cover the earth.'\"(32)\n\n\n     (32) For Gog and Magog, see Ezekiel xxxviii and xxxix, and Rev. xx,\n8; and for the general subject, Toy, Judaism and Christianity, Boston,\n1891, pp. 373, 374. For maps showing these two great terrors, and for\ngeographical discussion regarding them, see Lelewel, Geog. du Moyen\nAge, Bruxelles, 1850, Atlas; also Ruge, Gesch. des Zeitalters der\nEntdeckungen, Berlin, 1881, pp. 78, 79; also Peschel's Abhandlungen,\npp.28-35, and Gesch. der Erdkunde, p. 210. For representations on maps\nof the \"Four Winds,\" see Charton, Voyageurs, tome ii, p. 11; also Ruge,\nas above, pp. 324, 325; also for a curious mixture of the scriptural\nwinds issuing from the bags of Aeolus, see a map of the twelfth century\nin Leon Gautier, La Chevalerie, p. 153; and for maps showing additional\nwinds, see various editions of Ptolemy. For a map with angels turning\nthe earth by means of cranks at the poles, see Grynaeus, Novus Orbis,\nBasileae, 1537. For the globe kept spinning by the Almighty, see J.\nHondius's map, 1589; and for Heylin, his first folio, 1652, p. 27.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nEven while the doctrine of the sphericity of the earth was undecided,\nanother question had been suggested which theologians finally came to\nconsider of far greater importance. The doctrine of the sphericity\nof the earth naturally led to thought regarding its inhabitants, and\nanother ancient germ was warmed into life--the idea of antipodes: of\nhuman beings on the earth's opposite sides.\n\nIn the Greek and Roman world this idea had found supporters and\nopponents, Cicero and Pliny being among the former, and Epicurus,\nLucretius, and Plutarch among the latter. Thus the problem came into the\nearly Church unsolved.\n\nAmong the first churchmen to take it up was, in the East, St. Gregory\nNazianzen, who showed that to sail beyond Gibraltar was impossible; and,\nin the West, Lactantius, who asked: \"Is there any one so senseless as\nto believe that there are men whose footsteps are higher than their\nheads?... that the crops and trees grow downward?... that the rains and\nsnow and hail fall upward toward the earth?... I am at a loss what to\nsay of those who, when they have once erred, steadily persevere in their\nfolly and defend one vain thing by another.\"\n\nIn all this contention by Gregory and Lactantius there was nothing to be\nespecially regretted, for, whatever their motive, they simply supported\ntheir inherited belief on grounds of natural law and probability.\n\nUnfortunately, the discussion was not long allowed to rest on these\nscientific and philosophical grounds; other Christian thinkers followed,\nwho in their ardour adduced texts of Scripture, and soon the question\nhad become theological; hostility to the belief in antipodes became\ndogmatic. The universal Church was arrayed against it, and in front of\nthe vast phalanx stood, to a man, the fathers.\n\nTo all of them this idea seemed dangerous; to most of them it seemed\ndamnable. St. Basil and St. Ambrose were tolerant enough to allow that\na man might be saved who thought the earth inhabited on its opposite\nsides; but the great majority of the fathers doubted the possibility of\nsalvation to such misbelievers. The great champion of the orthodox view\nwas St. Augustine. Though he seemed inclined to yield a little in regard\nto the sphericity of the earth, he fought the idea that men exist on the\nother side of it, saying that \"Scripture speaks of no such descendants\nof Adam,\" he insists that men could not be allowed by the Almighty to\nlive there, since if they did they could not see Christ at His second\ncoming descending through the air. But his most cogent appeal, one which\nwe find echoed from theologian to theologian during a thousand years\nafterward, is to the nineteenth Psalm, and to its confirmation in the\nEpistle to the Romans; to the words, \"Their line is gone out through\nall the earth, and their words to the end of the world.\" He dwells with\ngreat force on the fact that St. Paul based one of his most powerful\narguments upon this declaration regarding the preachers of the gospel,\nand that he declared even more explicitly that \"Verily, their sound\nwent into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.\"\nThenceforth we find it constantly declared that, as those preachers\ndid not go to the antipodes, no antipodes can exist; and hence that the\nsupporters of this geographical doctrine \"give the lie direct to King\nDavid and to St. Paul, and therefore to the Holy Ghost.\" Thus the great\nBishop of Hippo taught the whole world for over a thousand years that,\nas there was no preaching of the gospel on the opposite side of the\nearth, there could be no human beings there.\n\nThe great authority of Augustine, and the cogency of his scriptural\nargument, held the Church firmly against the doctrine of the antipodes;\nall schools of interpretation were now agreed--the followers of the\nallegorical tendencies of Alexandria, the strictly literal exegetes of\nSyria, the more eclectic theologians of the West. For over a thousand\nyears it was held in the Church, \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" that\nthere could not be human beings on the opposite sides of the earth, even\nif the earth had opposite sides; and, when attacked by gainsayers, the\ngreat mass of true believers, from the fourth century to the fifteenth,\nsimply used that opiate which had so soothing an effect on John Henry\nNewman in the nineteenth century--securus judicat orbis terrarum.\n\nYet gainsayers still appeared. That the doctrine of the antipodes\ncontinued to have life, is shown by the fact that in the sixth century\nProcopius of Gaza attacks it with a tremendous argument. He declares\nthat, if there be men on the other side of the earth, Christ must have\ngone there and suffered a second time to save them; and, therefore, that\nthere must have been there, as necessary preliminaries to his coming, a\nduplicate Eden, Adam, serpent, and deluge.\n\nCosmas Indicopleustes also attacked the doctrine with especial\nbitterness, citing a passage from St. Luke to prove that antipodes are\ntheologically impossible.\n\nAt the end of the sixth century came a man from whom much might be\nexpected--St. Isidore of Seville. He had pondered over ancient thought\nin science, and, as we have seen, had dared proclaim his belief in the\nsphericity of the earth; but with that he stopped. As to the antipodes,\nthe authority of the Psalmist, St. Paul, and St. Augustine silences him;\nhe shuns the whole question as unlawful, subjects reason to faith, and\ndeclares that men can not and ought not to exist on opposite sides of\nthe earth.(33)\n\n\n     (33)For the opinions of Basil, Ambrose, and others, see Lecky, History\nof Rationalism in Europe, New York, 1872, vol. i, p. 279. Also Letronne,\nin Revue des Deux Mondes, March, 1834. For Lactantius, see citations\nalready given. For St. Augustine's opinion, see the De Civitate Dei,\nxvi, 9, where this great father of the church shows that the antipodes\n\"nulla ratione credendum est.\" For the unanimity of the fathers against\nthe antipodes, see Zockler, vol. 1, p. 127. For a very naive summary,\nsee Joseph Acosta, Natural and Moral History of the Indies, Grimston's\ntranslation, republished by the Hakluyt Soc., chaps. vii and viii; also\ncitations in Buckle's Posthumous Works, vol. ii, p. 645. For Procopius\nof Gaza, see Kretschmer, p. 55. See also, on the general subject,\nPeschel, Geschichte der Erdkunde, pp. 96-97. For Isidore, see citations\nalready given. To understand the embarrassment caused by these\nutterances of the fathers to scientific men of a later period, see\nletter of Agricola to Joachim Vadianus in 1514. Agricola asks Vadianus\nto give his views regarding the antipodes, saying that he himself does\nnot know what to do, between the fathers on the one side and the\nlearned men of modern times on the other. On the other hand, for the\nembarrassment caused to the Church by this mistaken zeal of the\nfathers, see Kepler's references and Fromund's replies; also De Morgan,\nParadoxes, p. 58. Kepler appears to have taken great delight in throwing\nthe views of Lactantius into the teeth of his adversaries.\n\n\nUnder such pressure this scientific truth seems to have disappeared for\nnearly two hundred years; but by the eighth century the sphericity\nof the earth had come to be generally accepted among the leaders of\nthought, and now the doctrine of the antipodes was again asserted by a\nbishop, Virgil of Salzburg.\n\nThere then stood in Germany, in those first years of the eighth century,\none of the greatest and noblest of men--St. Boniface. His learning was\nof the best then known. In labours he was a worthy successor of the\napostles; his genius for Christian work made him unwillingly primate of\nGermany; his devotion to duty led him willingly to martyrdom. There sat,\ntoo, at that time, on the papal throne a great Christian statesman--Pope\nZachary. Boniface immediately declared against the revival of such\na heresy as the doctrine of the antipodes; he stigmatized it as an\nassertion that there are men beyond the reach of the appointed means of\nsalvation; he attacked Virgil, and called on Pope Zachary for aid.\n\nThe Pope, as the infallible teacher of Christendom, made a strong\nresponse. He cited passages from the book of Job and the Wisdom of\nSolomon against the doctrine of the antipodes; he declared it \"perverse,\niniquitous, and against Virgil's own soul,\" and indicated a purpose of\ndriving him from his bishopric. Whether this purpose was carried out or\nnot, the old theological view, by virtue of the Pope's divinely ordered\nand protected \"inerrancy,\" was re-established, and the doctrine that\nthe earth has inhabitants on but one of its sides became more than ever\northodox, and precious in the mind of the Church.(34)\n\n\n     (34) For Virgil of Salzburg, see Neander's History of the Christian\nChurch, Torrey's translation, vol. iii, p. 63; also Herzog,\nReal-Encyklopadie, etc., recent edition by Prof. Hauck, s. v. Virgilius;\nalso Kretschmer, pp. 56-58; also Whewell, vol. i, p. 197; also De\nMorgan, Budget of Paradoxes, pp. 24-26. For very full notes as to pagan\nand Christian advocates of the doctrine of the sphericity of the earth\nand of the antipodes, and for extract from Zachary's letter, see Migne,\nPatrologia, vol. vi, p. 426, and vol. xli, p. 487. For St. Boniface's\npart, see Bonifacii Epistolae, ed. Giles, i, 173. Berger de Xivrey,\nTraditions Teratologiques, pp. 186-188, makes a curious attempt to show\nthat Pope Zachary denounced the wrong man; that the real offender was\na Roman poet--in the sixth book of the Aeneid and the first book of the\nGeorgics.\n\n\nThis decision seems to have been regarded as final, and five centuries\nlater the great encyclopedist of the Middle Ages, Vincent of Beauvais,\nthough he accepts the sphericity of the earth, treats the doctrine\nof the antipodes as disproved, because contrary to Scripture. Yet the\ndoctrine still lived. Just as it had been previously revived by William\nof Conches and then laid to rest, so now it is somewhat timidly brought\nout in the thirteenth century by no less a personage than Albert the\nGreat, the most noted man of science in that time. But his utterances\nare perhaps purposely obscure. Again it disappears beneath the\ntheological wave, and a hundred years later Nicolas d'Oresme, geographer\nof the King of France, a light of science, is forced to yield to the\nclear teaching of the Scripture as cited by St. Augustine.\n\nNor was this the worst. In Italy, at the beginning of the fourteenth\ncentury, the Church thought it necessary to deal with questions of this\nsort by rack and fagot. In 1316 Peter of Abano, famous as a physician,\nhaving promulgated this with other obnoxious doctrines in science, only\nescaped the Inquisition by death; and in 1327 Cecco d'Ascoli, noted as\nan astronomer, was for this and other results of thought, which brought\nhim under suspicion of sorcery, driven from his professorship at Bologna\nand burned alive at Florence. Nor was this all his punishment: Orcagna,\nwhose terrible frescoes still exist on the walls of the Campo Santo at\nPisa, immortalized Cecco by representing him in the flames of hell.(35)\n\n\n     (35) For Vincent of Beauvais and the antipode, see his Speculum\nNaturale, Book VII, with citations from St. Augustine, De Civitate\nDei, cap. xvi. For Albert the Great's doctrine regarding the antipodes,\ncompare Kretschmer, as above, with Eicken, Geschichte, etc., p. 621.\nKretschmer finds that Albert supports the doctrine, and Eicken finds\nthat he denies it--a fair proof that Albert was not inclined to state\nhis views with dangerous clearness. For D'Oresme, see Santerem, Histoire\nde la Cosmographie, vol. i, p. 142. For Peter of Abano, or Apono, as he\nis often called, see Tiraboschi, also Guinguene, vol. ii, p. 293;\nalso Naude, Histoire des Grands Hommes soupconnes de Magie. For Cecco\nd'Ascoli, see Montucla, Histoire de Mathematiques, i, 528; also Daunou,\nEtudes Historiques, vol. vi, p. 320; also Kretschmer, p. 59. Concerning\nOrcagna's representation of Cecco in the flames of hell, see Renan,\nAverroes et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1867, p. 328.\n\n\nYears rolled on, and there came in the fifteenth century one from\nwhom the world had a right to expect much. Pierre d'Ailly, by force of\nthought and study, had risen to be Provost of the College of St. Die\nin Lorraine; his ability had made that little village a centre of\nscientific thought for all Europe, and finally made him Archbishop of\nCambray and a cardinal. Toward the end of the fifteenth century was\nprinted what Cardinal d'Ailly had written long before as a summing up\nof his best thought and research--the collection of essays known as the\nYmago Mundi. It gives us one of the most striking examples in history\nof a great man in theological fetters. As he approaches this question\nhe states it with such clearness that we expect to hear him assert the\ntruth; but there stands the argument of St. Augustine; there, too, stand\nthe biblical texts on which it is founded--the text from the Psalms and\nthe explicit declaration of St. Paul to the Romans, \"Their sound went\ninto all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.\" D'Ailly\nattempts to reason, but he is overawed, and gives to the world virtually\nnothing.\n\nStill, the doctrine of the antipodes lived and moved: so much so that\nthe eminent Spanish theologian Tostatus, even as late as the age of\nColumbus, felt called upon to protest against it as \"unsafe.\" He had\nshaped the old missile of St. Augustine into the following syllogism:\n\"The apostles were commanded to go into all the world and to preach the\ngospel to every creature; they did not go to any such part of the world\nas the antipodes; they did not preach to any creatures there: ergo, no\nantipodes exist.\"\n\nThe warfare of Columbus the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta\nworsted him in Portugal; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him\nwith the usual quotations from the Psalms, from St. Paul, and from St.\nAugustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had\ngreatly strengthened the theory of the earth's sphericity, with which\nthe theory of the antipodes was so closely connected, the Church by its\nhighest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray. In\n1493 Pope Alexander VI, having been appealed to as an umpire between the\nclaims of Spain and Portugal to the newly discovered parts of the earth,\nissued a bull laying down upon the earth's surface a line of demarcation\nbetween the two powers. This line was drawn from north to south a\nhundred leagues west of the Azores; and the Pope in the plenitude of his\nknowledge declared that all lands discovered east of this line should\nbelong to the Portuguese, and all west of it should belong to the\nSpaniards. This was hailed as an exercise of divinely illuminated power\nby the Church; but difficulties arose, and in 1506 another attempt\nwas made by Pope Julius II to draw the line three hundred and seventy\nleagues west of the Cape Verde Islands. This, again, was supposed to\nbring divine wisdom to settle the question; but, shortly, overwhelming\ndifficulties arose; for the Portuguese claimed Brazil, and, of course,\nhad no difficulty in showing that they could reach it by sailing to the\neast of the line, provided they sailed long enough. The lines laid down\nby Popes Alexander and Julius may still be found upon the maps of\nthe period, but their bulls have quietly passed into the catalogue of\nludicrous errors.\n\nYet the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but\nslowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare\nit to the world at large. Eleven hundred years had passed since St.\nAugustine had proved its antagonism to Scripture, when Gregory Reysch\ngave forth his famous encyclopaedia, the Margarita Philosophica. Edition\nafter edition was issued, and everywhere appeared in it the orthodox\nstatements; but they were evidently strained to the breaking point; for\nwhile, in treating of the antipodes, Reysch refers respectfully to St.\nAugustine as objecting to the scientific doctrine, he is careful not to\ncite Scripture against it, and not less careful to suggest geographical\nreasoning in favour of it.\n\nBut in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his\nfamous voyage. He proves the earth to be round, for his expedition\ncircumnavigates it; he proves the doctrine of the antipodes, for his\nshipmates see the peoples of the antipodes. Yet even this does not end\nthe war. Many conscientious men oppose the doctrine for two hundred\nyears longer. Then the French astronomers make their measurements of\ndegrees in equatorial and polar regions, and add to their proofs that\nof the lengthened pendulum. When this was done, when the deductions of\nscience were seen to be established by the simple test of measurement,\nbeautifully and perfectly, and when a long line of trustworthy\nexplorers, including devoted missionaries, had sent home accounts of the\nantipodes, then, and then only, this war of twelve centuries ended.\n\nSuch was the main result of this long war; but there were other results\nnot so fortunate. The efforts of Eusebius, Basil, and Lactantius to\ndeaden scientific thought; the efforts of Augustine to combat it; the\nefforts of Cosmas to crush it by dogmatism; the efforts of Boniface\nand Zachary to crush it by force, conscientious as they all were, had\nresulted simply in impressing upon many leading minds the conviction\nthat science and religion are enemies.\n\nOn the other hand, what was gained by the warriors of science for\nreligion? Certainly a far more worthy conception of the world, and a far\nmore ennobling conception of that power which pervades and directs\nit. Which is more consistent with a great religion, the cosmography\nof Cosmas or that of Isaac Newton? Which presents a nobler field for\nreligious thought, the diatribes of Lactantius or the calm statements of\nHumboldt?(36)\n\n\n     (36) For D'Ailly's acceptance of St. Augustine's argument, see the Ymago\nMundi, cap. vii. For Tostatus, see Zockler, vol. i, pp. 467, 468. He\nbased his opposition on Romans x, 18. For Columbus, see Winsor,\nFiske, and Adams; also Humboldt, Histoire de la Geographie du Nouveau\nContinent. For the bull of Alexander VI, see Daunou, Etudes Historiques,\nvol. ii, p. 417; also Peschel, Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Book II,\nchap. iv. The text of the bull is given with an English translation\nin Arber's reprint of The First Three English Books on America, etc.,\nBirmingham, 1885, pp. 201-204; also especially Peschel, Die Theilung der\nErde unter Papst Alexander VI and Julius II, Leipsic, 1871, pp. 14\net seq. For remarks on the power under which the line was drawn by\nAlexander VI, see Mamiani, Del Papato nei Tre Ultimi Secoli, p. 170.\nFor maps showing lines of division, see Kohl, Die beiden altesten\nGeneral-Karten von Amerika, Weimar, 1860, where maps of 1527 and 1529\nare reproduced; also Mercator, Atlas, tenth edition, Amsterdam, 1628,\npp. 70, 71. For latest discussion on The Demarcation Line of Alexander\nVI, see E. G. Bourne in Yale Review, May, 1892. For the Margarita\nPhilosophica, see the editions of 1503, 1509, 1517, lib. vii, cap. 48.\nFor the effect of Magellan's voyages, and the reluctance to yield to\nproof, see Henri Martin, Histoire de France, vol. xiv, p. 395; St.\nMartin's Histoire de la Geographie, p. 369; Peschel, Geschichte des\nZeitalters der Entdeckungen, concluding chapters; and for an admirable\nsummary, Draper, Hist. Int. Devel. of Europe, pp. 451-453; also an\ninteresting passage in Sir Thomas Brown's Vulgar and Common Errors, Book\nI, chap. vi; also a striking passage in Acosta, chap. ii. For general\nstatement as to supplementary proof by measurement of degrees and by\npendulum, see Somerville, Phys. Geog., chap. i, par. 6, note; also\nHumboldt, Cosmos, vol. ii, p. 736, and vol. v, pp. 16, 32; also\nMontucla, iv, 138. As to the effect of travel, see Acosta's history\nabove cited. The good missionary says, in Grimston's quaint translation,\n\"Whatsoever Lactantius saith, wee that live now at Peru, and inhabite\nthat parte of the worlde which is opposite to Asia and theire Antipodes,\nfinde not ourselves to bee hanging in the aire, our heades downward and\nour feete on high.\"\n\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE SIZE OF THE EARTH.\n\n\nBut at an early period another subject in geography had stirred the\nminds of thinking men--THE EARTH'S SIZE. Various ancient investigators\nhad by different methods reached measurements more or less near the\ntruth; these methods were continued into the Middle Ages, supplemented\nby new thought, and among the more striking results were those obtained\nby Roger Bacon and Gerbert, afterward Pope Sylvester II. They handed\ndown to after-time the torch of knowledge, but, as their reward among\ntheir contemporaries, they fell under the charge of sorcery.\n\nFar more consonant with the theological spirit of the Middle Ages was a\nsolution of the problem from Scripture, and this solution deserves to\nbe given as an example of a very curious theological error, chancing to\nresult in the establishment of a great truth. The second book of Esdras,\nwhich among Protestants is placed in the Apocrypha, was held by many of\nthe foremost men of the ancient Church as fully inspired: though Jerome\nlooked with suspicion on this book, it was regarded as prophetic\nby Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Ambrose, and the Church\nacquiesced in that view. In the Eastern Church it held an especially\nhigh place, and in the Western Church, before the Reformation, was\ngenerally considered by the most eminent authorities to be part of the\nsacred canon. In the sixth chapter of this book there is a summary of\nthe works of creation, and in it occur the following verses:\n\n\"Upon the third day thou didst command that the waters should be\ngathered in the seventh part of the earth; six parts hast thou dried up\nand kept them to the intent that of these some, being planted of God and\ntilled, might serve thee.\"\n\n\"Upon the fifth day thou saidst unto the seventh part where the waters\nwere gathered, that it should bring forth living creatures, fowls and\nfishes, and so it came to pass.\"\n\nThese statements were reiterated in other verses, and were naturally\nconsidered as of controlling authority.\n\nAmong the scholars who pondered on this as on all things likely to\nincrease knowledge was Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly. As we have seen, this\ngreat man, while he denied the existence of the antipodes, as St.\nAugustine had done, believed firmly in the sphericity of the earth, and,\ninterpreting these statements of the book of Esdras in connection with\nthis belief, he held that, as only one seventh of the earth's surface\nwas covered by water, the ocean between the west coast of Europe and the\neast coast of Asia could not be very wide. Knowing, as he thought, the\nextent of the land upon the globe, he felt that in view of this divinely\nauthorized statement the globe must be much smaller, and the land of\n\"Zipango,\" reached by Marco Polo, on the extreme east coast of Asia,\nmuch nearer than had been generally believed.\n\nOn this point he laid stress in his great work, the Ymago Mundi, and\nan edition of it having been published in the days when Columbus\nwas thinking most closely upon the problem of a westward voyage, it\nnaturally exercised much influence upon his reasonings. Among the\ntreasures of the library at Seville, there is nothing more interesting\nthan a copy of this work annotated by Columbus himself: from this very\ncopy it was that Columbus obtained confirmation of his belief that the\npassage across the ocean to Marco Polo's land of Zipango in Asia was\nshort. But for this error, based upon a text supposed to be inspired, it\nis unlikely that Columbus could have secured the necessary support for\nhis voyage. It is a curious fact that this single theological error thus\npromoted a series of voyages which completely destroyed not only\nthis but every other conception of geography based upon the sacred\nwritings.(37)\n\n\n     (37) For this error, so fruitful in discovery, see D'Ailly, Ymago Mundi;\nthe passage referred to is fol. 12 verso. For the passage from Esdras,\nsee chap. vi, verses 42, 47, 50, and 52; see also Zockler, Geschichte\nder Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturweissenschaft, vol. i,\np. 461. For one of the best recent statements, see Ruge, Gesch. des\nZeitalters der Entdeckungen, Berlin, 1882, pp. 221 et seq. For a letter\nof Columbus acknowledging his indebtedness to this mistake in Esdras,\nsee Navarrete, Viajes y Descubrimientos, Madrid, 1825, tome i, pp. 242,\n264; also Humboldt, Hist. de la Geographie du Nouveau Continent, vol. i,\npp. 68, 69.\n\n\n\n\n\nV. THE CHARACTER OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE.\n\nIt would be hardly just to dismiss the struggle for geographical truth\nwithout referring to one passage more in the history of the Protestant\nChurch, for it shows clearly the difficulties in the way of the simplest\nstatement of geographical truth which conflicted with the words of the\nsacred books.\n\nIn the year 1553 Michael Servetus was on trial for his life at Geneva\non the charge of Arianism. Servetus had rendered many services\nto scientific truth, and one of these was an edition of Ptolemy's\nGeography, in which Judea was spoken of, not as \"a land flowing with\nmilk and honey,\" but, in strict accordance with the truth, as, in\nthe main, meagre, barren, and inhospitable. In his trial this simple\nstatement of geographical fact was used against him by his arch-enemy\nJohn Calvin with fearful power. In vain did Servetus plead that he had\nsimply drawn the words from a previous edition of Ptolemy; in vain did\nhe declare that this statement was a simple geographical truth of which\nthere were ample proofs: it was answered that such language \"necessarily\ninculpated Moses, and grievously outraged the Holy Ghost.\"(38)\n\n\n     (38) For Servetus's geographical offense, see Rilliet, Relation du\nProces criminel contre Michel Servet d'apres les Documents originaux,\nGeneva, 1844, pp. 42,43; also Willis, Servetus and Calvin, London, 1877,\np. 325. The passage condemned is in the Ptolemy of 1535, fol. 41. It was\ndiscreetly retrenched in a reprint of the same edition.\n\n\nIn summing up the action of the Church upon geography, we must say,\nthen, that the dogmas developed in strict adherence to Scripture and\nthe conceptions held in the Church during many centuries \"always, every\nwhere, and by all,\" were, on the whole, steadily hostile to truth; but\nit is only just to make a distinction here between the religious and the\ntheological spirit. To the religious spirit are largely due several\nof the noblest among the great voyages of discovery. A deep longing to\nextend the realms of Christianity influenced the minds of Prince John\nof Portugal, in his great series of efforts along the African coast;\nof Vasco da Gama, in his circumnavigation of the Cape of Good Hope; of\nMagellan, in his voyage around the world; and doubtless found a place\namong the more worldly motives of Columbus.(39)\n\n\n     (39) As to the earlier mixture in the motives of Columbus, it may be\nwell to compare with the earlier biographies the recent ones by Dr.\nWinsor and President Adams.\n\n\nThus, in this field, from the supremacy accorded to theology, we find\nresulting that tendency to dogmatism which has shown itself in all\nages the deadly foe not only of scientific inquiry but of the higher\nreligious spirit itself, while from the love of truth for truth's sake,\nwhich has been the inspiration of all fruitful work in science, nothing\nbut advantage has ever resulted to religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.  ASTRONOMY.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE OLD SACRED THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n\nThe next great series of battles was fought over the relations of the\nvisible heavens to the earth.\n\nIn the early Church, in view of the doctrine so prominent in the New\nTestament, that the earth was soon to be destroyed, and that there were\nto be \"new heavens and a new earth,\" astronomy, like other branches of\nscience, was generally looked upon as futile. Why study the old heavens\nand the old earth, when they were so soon to be replaced with something\ninfinitely better? This feeling appears in St. Augustine's famous\nutterance, \"What concern is it to me whether the heavens as a sphere\ninclose the earth in the middle of the world or overhang it on either\nside?\"\n\nAs to the heavenly bodies, theologians looked on them as at best only\nobjects of pious speculation. Regarding their nature the fathers of the\nChurch were divided. Origen, and others with him, thought them living\nbeings possessed of souls, and this belief was mainly based upon the\nscriptural vision of the morning stars. singing together, and upon\nthe beautiful appeal to the \"stars and light\" in the song of the three\nchildren--the Benedicite--which the Anglican communion has so wisely\nretained in its Liturgy.\n\nOther fathers thought the stars abiding-places of the angels, and that\nstars were moved by angels. The Gnostics thought the stars spiritual\nbeings governed by angels, and appointed not to cause earthly events but\nto indicate them.\n\nAs to the heavens in general, the prevailing view in the Church\nwas based upon the scriptural declarations that a solid vault--a\n\"firmament\"--was extended above the earth, and that the heavenly\nbodies were simply lights hung within it. This was for a time held\nvery tenaciously. St. Philastrius, in his famous treatise on heresies,\npronounced it a heresy to deny that the stars are brought out by God\nfrom his treasure-house and hung in the sky every evening; any other\nview he declared \"false to the Catholic faith.\" This view also survived\nin the sacred theory established so firmly by Cosmas in the sixth\ncentury. Having established his plan of the universe upon various texts\nin the Old and New Testaments, and having made it a vast oblong box,\ncovered by the solid \"firmament,\" he brought in additional texts from\nScripture to account for the planetary movements, and developed at\nlength the theory that the sun and planets are moved and the \"windows of\nheaven\" opened and shut by angels appointed for that purpose.\n\nHow intensely real this way of looking at the universe was, we find in\nthe writings of St. Isidore, the greatest leader of orthodox thought\nin the seventh century. He affirms that since the fall of man, and\non account of it, the sun and moon shine with a feebler light; but he\nproves from a text in Isaiah that when the world shall be fully redeemed\nthese \"great lights\" will shine again in all their early splendour.\nBut, despite these authorities and their theological finalities, the\nevolution of scientific thought continued, its main germ being the\ngeocentric doctrine--the doctrine that the earth is the centre, and that\nthe sun and planets revolve about it.(40)\n\n\n     (40) For passage cited from Clement of Alexandria, see English\ntranslation, Edinburgh, 1869, vol. ii, p. 368; also the Miscellanies,\nBook V, cap. vi. For typical statements by St. Augustine, see De Genesi,\nii, cap. ix, in Migne, Patr. Lat., tome xxiv, pp. 270-271. For Origen's\nview, see the De Principiis, lib. i, cap. vii; see also Leopardi's\nErrori Populari, cap. xi; also Wilson's Selections from the Prophetic\nScriptures in Ante-Nicene Library, p. 132. For Philo Judaeus, see On the\nCreation of the World, chaps. xviii and xix, and On Monarchy, chap. i.\nFor St. Isidore, see the De Ordine Creaturarum, cap v, in Migne, Patr.\nLat., lxxxiii, pp. 923-925; also 1000, 1001. For Philastrius, see the\nDe Hoeresibus, chap. cxxxiii, in Migne, tome xii, p. 1264. For Cosmas's\nview, see his Topographia Christiana, in Montfaucon, Col. Nov. Patrum,\nii, p. 150, and elsewhere as cited in my chapter on Geography.\n\n\nThis doctrine was of the highest respectability: it had been developed\nat a very early period, and had been elaborated until it accounted\nwell for the apparent movements of the heavenly bodies; its final name,\n\"Ptolemaic theory,\" carried weight; and, having thus come from antiquity\ninto the Christian world, St. Clement of Alexandria demonstrated that\nthe altar in the Jewish tabernacle was \"a symbol of the earth placed\nin the middle of the universe\": nothing more was needed; the geocentric\ntheory was fully adopted by the Church and universally held to agree\nwith the letter and spirit of Scripture.(41)\n\n\n     (41) As to the respectibility of the geocentric theory, etc., see\nGrote's Plato, vol. iii, p. 257; also Sir G. C. Lewis's Astronomy of the\nAncients, chap. iii, sec. 1, for a very thoughtful statement of Plato's\nview, and differing from ancient statements. For plausible elaboration\nof it, and for supposed agreement of the Scripture with it, see\nFromundus, Anti-Aristarchus, Antwerp, 1631; also Melanchthon's Initia\nDoctrinae Physicae. For an admirable statement of the theological view\nof the geocentric theory, antipodes, etc., see Eicken, Geschichte und\nSystem der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, pp. 618 et seq.\n\n\nWrought into this foundation, and based upon it, there was developed\nin the Middle Ages, mainly out of fragments of Chaldean and other early\ntheories preserved in the Hebrew Scriptures, a new sacred system of\nastronomy, which became one of the great treasures of the universal\nChurch--the last word of revelation.\n\nThree great men mainly reared this structure. First was the unknown who\ngave to the world the treatises ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite.\nIt was unhesitatingly believed that these were the work of St. Paul's\nAthenian convert, and therefore virtually of St. Paul himself. Though\nnow known to be spurious, they were then considered a treasure of\ninspiration, and an emperor of the East sent them to an emperor of the\nWest as the most worthy of gifts. In the ninth century they were widely\ncirculated in western Europe, and became a fruitful source of thought,\nespecially on the whole celestial hierarchy. Thus the old ideas of\nastronomy were vastly developed, and the heavenly hosts were classed\nand named in accordance with indications scattered through the sacred\nScriptures.\n\nThe next of these three great theologians was Peter Lombard, professor\nat the University of Paris. About the middle of the twelfth century he\ngave forth his collection of Sentences, or Statements by the Fathers,\nand this remained until the end of the Middle Ages the universal manual\nof theology. In it was especially developed the theological view of\nman's relation to the universe. The author tells the world: \"Just as\nman is made for the sake of God--that is, that he may serve Him,--so the\nuniverse is made for the sake of man--that is, that it may serve HIM;\ntherefore is man placed at the middle point of the universe, that he may\nboth serve and be served.\"\n\nThe vast significance of this view, and its power in resisting any real\nastronomical science, we shall see, especially in the time of Galileo.\n\nThe great triad of thinkers culminated in St. Thomas Aquinas--the\nsainted theologian, the glory of the mediaeval Church, the \"Angelic\nDoctor,\" the most marvellous intellect between Aristotle and Newton; he\nto whom it was believed that an image of the Crucified had spoken words\npraising his writings. Large of mind, strong, acute, yet just--even more\nthan just--to his opponents, he gave forth, in the latter half of the\nthirteenth century, his Cyclopaedia of Theology, the Summa Theologica.\nIn this he carried the sacred theory of the universe to its full\ndevelopment. With great power and clearness he brought the whole vast\nsystem, material and spiritual, into its relations to God and man.(42)\n\n\n     (42) For the beliefs of Chaldean astronomers in revolving spheres\ncarrying sun, moon, and planets, in a solid firmament supporting the\ncelestial waters, and in angels as giving motion to the planets, see\nLenormant; also Lethaby, 13-21; also Schroeder, Jensen, Lukas, et al.\nFor the contribution of the pseudo-Dionysius to mediaeval cosmology, see\nDion. Areopagita, De Coelesti Hierarchia, vers. Joan. Scoti, in Migne,\nPatr. Lat., cxxii. For the contribution of Peter Lombard, see Pet.\nLomb., Libr. Sent., II, i, 8,-IV, i, 6, 7, in Migne, tome 192. For the\ncitations from St. Thomas Aquinas, see the Summa, ed. Migne, especially\nPars I, Qu. 70, (tome i, pp. 1174-1184); also Quaestio 47, Art. iii. For\ngood general statement, see Milman, Latin Christianity, iv, 191 et seq.;\nand for relation of Cosmas to these theologians of western Europe, see\nMilman, as above, viii, 228, note.\n\n\nThus was the vast system developed by these three leaders of mediaeval\nthought; and now came the man who wrought it yet more deeply into\nEuropean belief, the poet divinely inspired who made the system part\nof the world's LIFE. Pictured by Dante, the empyrean and the concentric\nheavens, paradise, purgatory, and hell, were seen of all men; the God\nTriune, seated on his throne upon the circle of the heavens, as real as\nthe Pope seated in the chair of St. Peter; the seraphim, cherubim, and\nthrones, surrounding the Almighty, as real as the cardinals surrounding\nthe Pope; the three great orders of angels in heaven, as real as the\nthree great orders, bishops, priests, and deacons, on earth; and the\nwhole system of spheres, each revolving within the one above it, and\nall moving about the earth, subject to the primum mobile, as real as the\nfeudal system of western Europe, subject to the Emperor.(43)\n\n\n     (43) For the central sun, hierarchy of angels, and concentric circles,\nsee Dante, Paradiso, canto xxviii. For the words of St. Thomas Aquinas,\nshowing to Virgil and Dante the great theologians of the Middle Ages,\nsee canto x, and in Dean Plumptre's translation, vol. ii, pp. 56 et\nseq.; also Botta, Dante, pp. 350, 351. As to Dante's deep religious\nfeeling and belief in his own divine mission, see J. R. Lowell, Among\nmy Books, vol. i, p. 36. For a remarkable series of coloured engravings,\nshowing Dante's whole cosmology, see La Materia della Divina Comedia di\nDante dichiriata in vi tavole, da Michelangelo Caetani, published by the\nmonks of Monte Cassino, to whose kindness I am indebted for my copy.\n\n\nLet us look into this vast creation--the highest achievement of\ntheology--somewhat more closely.\n\nIts first feature shows a development out of earlier theological ideas.\nThe earth is no longer a flat plain inclosed by four walls and solidly\nvaulted above, as theologians of previous centuries had believed it,\nunder the inspiration of Cosmas; it is no longer a mere flat disk, with\nsun, moon, and stars hung up to give it light, as the earlier cathedral\nsculptors had figured it; it has become a globe at the centre of the\nuniverse. Encompassing it are successive transparent spheres, rotated\nby angels about the earth, and each carrying one or more of the heavenly\nbodies with it: that nearest the earth carrying the moon; the next,\nMercury; the next, Venus; the next, the Sun; the next three, Mars,\nJupiter, and Saturn; the eighth carrying the fixed stars. The ninth was\nthe primum mobile, and inclosing all was the tenth heaven--the Empyrean.\nThis was immovable--the boundary between creation and the great outer\nvoid; and here, in a light which no one can enter, the Triune God sat\nenthroned, the \"music of the spheres\" rising to Him as they moved. Thus\nwas the old heathen doctrine of the spheres made Christian.\n\nIn attendance upon the Divine Majesty, thus enthroned, are vast hosts\nof angels, who are divided into three hierarchies, one serving in the\nempyrean, one in the heavens, between the empyrean and the earth, and\none on the earth.\n\nEach of these hierarchies is divided into three choirs, or orders; the\nfirst, into the orders of Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; and the main\noccupation of these is to chant incessantly--to \"continually cry\" the\ndivine praises.\n\nThe order of Thrones conveys God's will to the second hierarchy, which\nserves in the movable heavens. This second hierarchy is also made up of\nthree orders. The first of these, the order of Dominions, receives the\ndivine commands; the second, the order of Powers, moves the heavens,\nsun, moon, planets, and stars, opens and shuts the \"windows of heaven,\"\nand brings to pass all other celestial phenomena; the third, the order\nof Empire, guards the others.\n\nThe third and lowest hierarchy is also made up of three orders. First\nof these are the Principalities, the guardian spirits of nations and\nkingdoms. Next come Archangels; these protect religion, and bear the\nprayers of the saints to the foot of God's throne. Finally come Angels;\nthese care for earthly affairs in general, one being appointed to each\nmortal, and others taking charge of the qualities of plants, metals,\nstones, and the like. Throughout the whole system, from the great Triune\nGod to the lowest group of angels, we see at work the mystic power\nattached to the triangle and sacred number three--the same which gave\nthe triune idea to ancient Hindu theology, which developed the triune\ndeities in Egypt, and which transmitted this theological gift to the\nChristian world, especially through the Egyptian Athanasius.\n\nBelow the earth is hell. This is tenanted by the angels who rebelled\nunder the lead of Lucifer, prince of the seraphim--the former favourite\nof the Trinity; but, of these rebellious angels, some still rove among\nthe planetary spheres, and give trouble to the good angels; others\npervade the atmosphere about the earth, carrying lightning, storm,\ndrought, and hail; others infest earthly society, tempting men to sin;\nbut Peter Lombard and St. Thomas Aquinas take pains to show that the\nwork of these devils is, after all, but to discipline man or to mete out\ndeserved punishment.\n\nAll this vast scheme had been so riveted into the Ptolemaic view by\nthe use of biblical texts and theological reasonings that the resultant\nsystem of the universe was considered impregnable and final. To attack\nit was blasphemy.\n\nIt stood for centuries. Great theological men of science, like Vincent\nof Beauvais and Cardinal d'Ailly, devoted themselves to showing not only\nthat it was supported by Scripture, but that it supported Scripture.\nThus was the geocentric theory embedded in the beliefs and aspirations,\nin the hopes and fears, of Christendom down to the middle of the\nsixteenth century.(44)\n\n\n     (44) For the earlier cosmology of Cosmas, with citations from\nMontfaucon, see the chapter on Geography in this work. For the views\nof mediaeval theologians, see foregoing notes in this chapter. For the\npassages of Scripture on which the theological part of this structure\nwas developed, see especially Romans viii, 38; Ephesians i, 21;\nColossians i, 16 and ii, 15; and innumerable passages in the Old\nTestament. As to the music of the spheres, see Dean Plumptre's Dante,\nvol. ii, p. 4, note. For an admirable summing up of the mediaeval\ncosmology in its relation to thought in general, see Rydberg, Magic of\nthe Middle Ages, chap. i, whose summary I have followed in the main. For\nstriking woodcuts showing the view taken of the successive heavens with\ntheir choirs of angels, the earth being at the centre with the spheres\nabout it, and the Almighty on his throne above all, see the Neuremberg\nChronicle, ff. iv and v; its date is 1493. For charts showing the\ncontinuance of this general view down to the beginning of the sixteenth\ncentury, see the various editions of the Margarita Philosophica, from\nthat of 1503 onward, astronomical part. For interesting statements\nregarding the Trinities of gods in ancient Egypt, see Sharpe, History of\nEgypt, vol. i, pp. 94 and 101. The present writer once heard a lecture\nin Cairo, from an eminent Scotch Doctor of Medicine, to account for the\nancient Hindu and Egyptian sacred threes and trinities. The lecturer's\ntheory was that, when Jehovah came down into the Garden of Eden and\nwalked with Adam in \"the cool of the day,\" he explained his triune\ncharacter to Adam, and that from Adam it was spread abroad to the\nvarious ancient nations.\n\n\n\n\nII. THE HELIOCENTRIC THEORY.\n\n\nBut, on the other hand, there had been planted, long before, the\ngerms of a heliocentric theory. In the sixth century before our era,\nPythagoras, and after him Philolaus, had suggested the movement of the\nearth and planets about a central fire; and, three centuries later,\nAristarchus had restated the main truth with striking precision. Here\ncomes in a proof that the antagonism between theological and scientific\nmethods is not confined to Christianity; for this statement brought\nupon Aristarchus the charge of blasphemy, and drew after it a cloud of\nprejudice which hid the truth for six hundred years. Not until the fifth\ncentury of our era did it timidly appear in the thoughts of Martianus\nCapella: then it was again lost to sight for a thousand years, until\nin the fifteenth century, distorted and imperfect, it appeared in the\nwritings of Cardinal Nicholas de Cusa.\n\nBut in the shade cast by the vast system which had grown from the minds\nof the great theologians and from the heart of the great poet there had\ncome to this truth neither bloom nor fruitage.\n\nQuietly, however, the soil was receiving enrichment and the air warmth.\nThe processes of mathematics were constantly improved, the heavenly\nbodies were steadily observed, and at length appeared, far from the\ncentres of thought, on the borders of Poland, a plain, simple-minded\nscholar, who first fairly uttered to the modern world the truth--now so\ncommonplace, then so astounding--that the sun and planets do not revolve\nabout the earth, but that the earth and planets revolve about the sun:\nthis man was Nicholas Copernicus.\n\nCopernicus had been a professor at Rome, and even as early as 1500\nhad announced his doctrine there, but more in the way of a scientific\ncuriosity or paradox, as it had been previously held by Cardinal de\nCusa, than as the statement of a system representing a great fact in\nNature. About thirty years later one of his disciples, Widmanstadt, had\nexplained it to Clement VII; but it still remained a mere hypothesis,\nand soon, like so many others, disappeared from the public view. But\nto Copernicus, steadily studying the subject, it became more and more\na reality, and as this truth grew within him he seemed to feel that at\nRome he was no longer safe. To announce his discovery there as a theory\nor a paradox might amuse the papal court, but to announce it as a\ntruth--as THE truth--was a far different matter. He therefore returned\nto his little town in Poland.\n\nTo publish his thought as it had now developed was evidently dangerous\neven there, and for more than thirty years it lay slumbering in the mind\nof Copernicus and of the friends to whom he had privately intrusted it.\n\nAt last he prepared his great work on the Revolutions of the Heavenly\nBodies, and dedicated it to the Pope himself. He next sought a place of\npublication. He dared not send it to Rome, for there were the rulers of\nthe older Church ready to seize it; he dared not send it to Wittenberg,\nfor there were the leaders of Protestantism no less hostile; he\ntherefore intrusted it to Osiander, at Nuremberg.(45)\n\n\n     (45) For the germs of heliocentric theory planted long before, see Sir\nG. C. Lewis; and for a succinct statement of the claims of Pythagoras,\nPhilolaus, Aristarchus, and Martianus Capella, see Hoefer, Histoire de\nl'Astronomie, 1873, p. 107 et seq.; also Heller, Geschichte der Physik,\nStuttgart, 1882, vol. i, pp. 12, 13; also pp. 99 et seq. For germs among\nthinkers of India, see Whewell, vol. i, p. 277; also Whitney, Oriental\nand Linguistic Studies, New York, 1874; Essay on the Lunar Zodiac, p.\n345. For the views of Vincent of Beauvais, see his Speculum Naturale,\nlib. xvi, cap. 21. For Cardinal d'Ailly's view, see his treatise De\nConcordia Astronomicae Veritatis cum Theologia (in his Ymago Mundi\nand separately). For general statement of De Cusa's work, see Draper,\nIntellectual Development of Europe, p. 512. For skilful use of De Cusa's\nview in order to mitigate censure upon the Church for its treatment\nof Copernicus's discovery, see an article in the Catholic World for\nJanuary, 1869. For a very exact statement, in the spirit of judicial\nfairness, see Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, p. 275, and\npp. 379, 380. In the latter, Whewell cites the exact words of De Cusa\nin the De Docta Ignorantia, and sums up in these words: \"This train\nof thought might be a preparation for the reception of the Copernican\nsystem; but it is very different from the doctrine that the sun is the\ncentre of the planetary system.\" Whewell says: \"De Cusa propounded the\ndoctrine of the motion of the earth more as a paradox than as a reality.\nWe can not consider this as any distinct anticipation of a profound and\nconsistent view of the truth.\" On De Cusa, see also Heller, vol. i, p.\n216. For Aristotle's views, and their elaboration by St. Thomas Aquinas,\nsee the De Coelo et Mundo, sec. xx, and elsewhere in the latter. It is\ncurious to see how even such a biographer as Archbishop Vaughan slurs\nover the angelic Doctor's errors. See Vaughan's Life and Labours of St.\nThomas of Aquin, pp. 459, 460.\n\nAs to Copernicus's danger at Rome, the Catholic World for January, 1869,\ncites a speech of the Archbishop of Mechlin before the University of\nLouvain, to the effect that Copernicus defended his theory at Rome, in\n1500, before two thousand scholars; also, that another professor taught\nthe system in 1528, and was made apostolic notary by Clement VIII. All\nthis, even if the doctrines taught were identical with Copernicus as\nfinally developed--which is simply not the case--avails nothing\nagainst the overwhelming testimony that Copernicus felt himself in\ndanger--testimony which the after-history of the Copernican theory\nrenders invincible. The very title of Fromundus's book, already cited,\npublished within a few miles of the archbishop's own cathedral, and\nsanctioned expressly by the theological faculty of that same University\nof Louvain in 1630, utterly refutes the archbishop's idea that the\nChurch was inclined to treat Copernicus kindly. The title is as\nfollows: Ant-Aristarchus sive Orbis-Terrae Immobilis, in quo decretum\nS. Congregationis S. R. E. Cardinal. an. M.DC.XVI adversus\nPythagorico-Copernicanos editum defenditur, Antverpiae, MDCXXI.\nL'Epinois, Galilee, Paris, 1867, lays stress, p. 14, on the broaching of\nthe doctrine by De Cusa in 1435, and by Widmanstadt in 1533, and their\nkind treatment by Eugenius IV and Clement VII; but this is absolutely\nworthless in denying the papal policy afterward. Lange, Geschichte des\nMaterialismus, vol. i, pp. 217, 218, while admitting that De Cusa\nand Widmanstadt sustained this theory and received honors from\ntheir respective popes, shows that, when the Church gave it serious\nconsideration, it was condemned. There is nothing in this view\nunreasonable. It would be a parallel case to that of Leo X, at first\ninclined toward Luther and others, in their \"squabbles with the envious\nfriars,\" and afterward forced to oppose them. That Copernicus felt\nthe danger, is evident, among other things, by the expression in the\npreface: \"Statim me explodendum cum tali opinione clamitant.\" For\ndangers at Wittenberg, see Lange, as above, vol. i, p. 217.\n\n\nBut Osiander's courage failed him: he dared not launch the new thought\nboldly. He wrote a grovelling preface, endeavouring to excuse Copernicus\nfor his novel idea, and in this he inserted the apologetic lie that\nCopernicus had propounded the doctrine of the earth's movement not as\na fact, but as a hypothesis. He declared that it was lawful for an\nastronomer to indulge his imagination, and that this was what Copernicus\nhad done.\n\nThus was the greatest and most ennobling, perhaps, of scientific\ntruths--a truth not less ennobling to religion than to science--forced,\nin coming before the world, to sneak and crawl.(46)\n\n\n     (46) Osiander, in a letter to Copernicus, dated April 20, 1541, had\nendeavored to reconcile him to such a procedure, and ends by saying,\n\"Sic enim placidiores reddideris peripatheticos et theologos quos\ncontradicturos metuis.\" See Apologia Tychonis in Kepler's Opera Omnia,\nFrisch's edition, vol. i, p. 246. Kepler holds Osiander entirely\nresponsible for this preface. Bertrand, in his Fondateurs de\nl'astronomie moderne, gives its text, and thinks it possible that\nCopernicus may have yielded \"in pure condescension toward his disciple.\"\nBut this idea is utterly at variance with expressions in Copernicus's\nown dedicatory letter to the Pope, which follows the preface. For a good\nsummary of the argument, see Figuier, Savants de la Renaissance, pp.\n378, 379; see also citation from Gassendi's Life of Copernicus, in\nFlammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 124. Mr. John Fiske, accurate as\nhe usually is, in his Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy appears to have\nfollowed Laplace, Delambre, and Petit into the error of supposing that\nCopernicus, and not Osiander, is responsible for the preface. For the\nlatest proofs, see Menzer's translation of Copernicus's work, Thorn,\n1879, notes on pp. 3 and 4 of the appendix.\n\n\nOn the 24th of May, 1543, the newly printed book arrived at the house of\nCopernicus. It was put into his hands; but he was on his deathbed. A few\nhours later he was beyond the reach of the conscientious men who would\nhave blotted his reputation and perhaps have destroyed his life.\n\nYet not wholly beyond their reach. Even death could not be trusted to\nshield him. There seems to have been fear of vengeance upon his corpse,\nfor on his tombstone was placed no record of his lifelong labours, no\nmention of his great discovery; but there was graven upon it simply a\nprayer: \"I ask not the grace accorded to Paul; not that given to Peter;\ngive me only the favour which Thou didst show to the thief on the\ncross.\"\n\nNot till thirty years after did a friend dare write on his tombstone a\nmemorial of his discovery.(47)\n\n\n     (47) See Flammarion, Vie de Copernic, p. 190.\n\n\nThe preface of Osiander, pretending that the book of Copernicus\nsuggested a hypothesis instead of announcing a truth, served its purpose\nwell. During nearly seventy years the Church authorities evidently\nthought it best not to stir the matter, and in some cases professors\nlike Calganini were allowed to present the new view purely as a\nhypothesis. There were, indeed, mutterings from time to time on the\ntheological side, but there was no great demonstration against the\nsystem until 1616. Then, when the Copernican doctrine was upheld by\nGalileo as a TRUTH, and proved to be a truth by his telescope, the book\nwas taken in hand by the Roman curia. The statements of Copernicus\nwere condemned, \"until they should be corrected\"; and the corrections\nrequired were simply such as would substitute for his conclusions the\nold Ptolemaic theory.\n\nThat this was their purpose was seen in that year when Galileo was\nforbidden to teach or discuss the Copernican theory, and when were\nforbidden \"all books which affirm the motion of the earth.\" Henceforth\nto read the work of Copernicus was to risk damnation, and the world\naccepted the decree.(48) The strongest minds were thus held fast. If\nthey could not believe the old system, they must PRETEND that they\nbelieved it;--and this, even after the great circumnavigation of the\nglobe had done so much to open the eyes of the world! Very striking is\nthe case of the eminent Jesuit missionary Joseph Acosta, whose great\nwork on the Natural and Moral History of the Indies, published in the\nlast quarter of the sixteenth century, exploded so many astronomical and\ngeographical errors. Though at times curiously credulous, he told the\ntruth as far as he dared; but as to the movement of the heavenly bodies\nhe remained orthodox--declaring, \"I have seen the two poles, whereon the\nheavens turn as upon their axletrees.\"\n\n\n     (48) The authorities deciding this matter in accordance with the wishes\nof Pope V and Cardinal Bellarmine were the Congregation of the Index,\nor cardinals having charge of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Recent\ndesperate attempts to fasten the responsibility on them as individuals\nseem ridiculous in view of the simple fact that their work was\nsanctioned by the highest Church authority, and required to be\nuniversally accepted by the Church. Eleven different editions of the\nIndex in my own possession prove this. Nearly all of these declare on\ntheir title-pages that they are issued by order of the pontiff of the\nperiod, and each is preface by a special papal bull or letter. See\nespecially the Index of 1664, issued under order of Alexander VII,\nand that of 1761, under Benedict XIV. Copernicus's statements were\nprohibited in the Index \"donec corrigantur.\" Kepler said that it ought\nto be worded \"donec explicetur.\" See Bertand, Fondateurs de l'Astronomie\nmoderne, p. 57. De Morgan, pp. 57-60, gives the corrections required by\nthe Index of 1620. Their main aim seems to be to reduce Copernicus\nto the grovelling level of Osiander, making his discovery a mere\nhypothesis; but occasionally they require a virtual giving up of the\nwhole Copernican doctrine--e.g., \"correction\" insisted upon for chap.\nviii, p. 6. For a scholarly account of the relation between Prohibitory\nand Expurgatory Indexes to each other, see Mendham, Literary Policy\nof the Church of Rome; also Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bucher, Bonn,\n1855, vol. ii, chaps i and ii. For a brief but very careful statement,\nsee Gebler, Galileo Galilei, English translation, London, 1879, chap. i;\nsee also Addis and Arnold's Catholic Dictionary, article Galileo, p.8.\n\n\nThere was, indeed, in Europe one man who might have done much to check\nthis current of unreason which was to sweep away so many thoughtful men\non the one hand from scientific knowledge, and so many on the other from\nChristianity. This was Peter Apian. He was one of the great mathematical\nand astronomical scholars of the time. His brilliant abilities had\nmade him the astronomical teacher of the Emperor Charles V. His work on\ngeography had brought him a world-wide reputation; his work on astronomy\nbrought him a patent of nobility; his improvements in mathematical\nprocesses and astronomical instruments brought him the praise of Kepler\nand a place in the history of science: never had a true man better\nopportunity to do a great deed. When Copernicus's work appeared, Apian\nwas at the height of his reputation and power: a quiet, earnest\nplea from him, even if it had been only for ordinary fairness and a\nsuspension of judgment, must have carried much weight. His devoted\npupil, Charles V, who sat on the thrones of Germany and Spain, must at\nleast have given a hearing to such a plea. But, unfortunately, Apian\nwas a professor in an institution of learning under the strictest Church\ncontrol--the University of Ingolstadt. His foremost duty was to teach\nSAFE science--to keep science within the line of scriptural truth as\ninterpreted by theological professors. His great opportunity was lost.\nApian continued to maunder over the Ptolemaic theory and astrology\nin his lecture-room. The attack on the Copernican theory he neither\nsupported nor opposed; he was silent; and the cause of his silence\nshould never be forgotten so long as any Church asserts its title to\ncontrol university instruction.(49)\n\n\n     (49) For Joseph Acosta's statement, see the translation of his History,\npublished by the Hakluyt Society, chap. ii. For Peter Apian, see Madler,\nGeschichte der Astronomie, Braunschweig, 1873, vol. i, p. 141. For\nevidences of the special favour of Charles V, see Delambre, Histoire\nde l'Astronomie au Moyen Age, p. 390; also Bruhns, in the Allgemeine\ndeutsche Biographie. For an attempted apology for him, see Gunther,\nPeter and Philipp Apian, Prag, 1822, p. 62.\n\n\nDoubtless many will exclaim against the Roman Catholic Church for this;\nbut the simple truth is that Protestantism was no less zealous\nagainst the new scientific doctrine. All branches of the Protestant\nChurch--Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican--vied with each other in\ndenouncing the Copernican doctrine as contrary to Scripture; and, at a\nlater period, the Puritans showed the same tendency.\n\nSaid Martin Luther: \"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove\nto show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the\nsun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some\nnew system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool\nwishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture\ntells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the\nearth.\" Melanchthon, mild as he was, was not behind Luther in condemning\nCopernicus. In his treatise on the Elements of Physics, published six\nyears after Copernicus's death, he says: \"The eyes are witnesses that\nthe heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men,\neither from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity,\nhave concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the\neighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and\ndecency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious.\nIt is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and\nto acquiesce in it.\" Melanchthon then cites the passages in the Psalms\nand Ecclesiastes, which he declares assert positively and clearly that\nthe earth stands fast and that the sun moves around it, and adds eight\nother proofs of his proposition that \"the earth can be nowhere if not\nin the centre of the universe.\" So earnest does this mildest of the\nReformers become, that he suggests severe measures to restrain such\nimpious teachings as those of Copernicus.(50)\n\n\n     (50) See the Tischreden in the Walsch edition of Luther's Works, 1743,\nvol. xxii, p. 2260; also Melanchthon's Initia Doctrinae Physicae.\nThis treatise is cited under a mistaken title by the Catholic World,\nSeptember, 1870. The correct title is as given above; it will be found\nin the Corpus Reformatorum, vol. xiii (ed. Bretschneider, Halle, 1846),\npp. 216, 217. See also Madler, vol. i, p. 176; also Lange, Geschichte\ndes Materialismus, vol. i, p. 217; also Prowe, Ueber die Abhangigkeit\ndes Copernicus, Thorn, 1865, p. 4; also note, pp. 5, 6, where text is\ngiven in full.\n\n\nWhile Lutheranism was thus condemning the theory of the earth's\nmovement, other branches of the Protestant Church did not remain behind.\nCalvin took the lead, in his Commentary on Genesis, by condemning all\nwho asserted that the earth is not at the centre of the universe. He\nclinched the matter by the usual reference to the first verse of the\nninety-third Psalm, and asked, \"Who will venture to place the authority\nof Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?\" Turretin, Calvin's famous\nsuccessor, even after Kepler and Newton had virtually completed the\ntheory of Copernicus and Galileo, put forth his compendium of theology,\nin which he proved, from a multitude of scriptural texts, that the\nheavens, sun, and moon move about the earth, which stands still in the\ncentre. In England we see similar theological efforts, even after they\nhad become evidently futile. Hutchinson's Moses's Principia, Dr. Samuel\nPike's Sacred Philosophy, the writings of Horne, Bishop Horsley, and\nPresident Forbes contain most earnest attacks upon the ideas of Newton,\nsuch attacks being based upon Scripture. Dr. John Owen, so famous in\nthe annals of Puritanism, declared the Copernican system a \"delusive\nand arbitrary hypothesis, contrary to Scripture\"; and even John Wesley\ndeclared the new ideas to \"tend toward infidelity.\"(51)\n\n\n     (51) On the teachings on Protestantism as regards the Copernican theory,\nsee citations in Canon Farrar's History of Interpretation, preface,\nxviii; also Rev. Dr. Shields, of Princeton, The Final Philosophy, pp.\n60, 61.\n\n\nAnd Protestant peoples were not a whit behind Catholic in following out\nsuch teachings. The people of Elbing made themselves merry over a farce\nin which Copernicus was the main object of ridicule. The people of\nNuremberg, a Protestant stronghold, caused a medal to be struck with\ninscriptions ridiculing the philosopher and his theory.\n\nWhy the people at large took this view is easily understood when we note\nthe attitude of the guardians of learning, both Catholic and Protestant,\nin that age. It throws great light upon sundry claims by modern\ntheologians to take charge of public instruction and of the evolution\nof science. So important was it thought to have \"sound learning\" guarded\nand \"safe science\" taught, that in many of the universities, as late as\nthe end of the seventeenth century, professors were forced to take an\noath not to hold the \"Pythagorean\"--that is, the Copernican--idea as to\nthe movement of the heavenly bodies. As the contest went on, professors\nwere forbidden to make known to students the facts revealed by\nthe telescope. Special orders to this effect were issued by the\necclesiastical authorities to the universities and colleges of Pisa,\nInnspruck, Louvain, Douay, Salamanca, and others. During generations we\nfind the authorities of these Universities boasting that these godless\ndoctrines were kept away from their students. It is touching to hear\nsuch boasts made then, just as it is touching now to hear sundry\nexcellent university authorities boast that they discourage the reading\nof Mill, Spencer, and Darwin. Nor were such attempts to keep the truth\nfrom students confined to the Roman Catholic institutions of learning.\nStrange as it may seem, nowhere were the facts confirming the Copernican\ntheory more carefully kept out of sight than at Wittenberg--the\nuniversity of Luther and Melanchthon. About the middle of the sixteenth\ncentury there were at that centre of Protestant instruction two\nastronomers of a very high order, Rheticus and Reinhold; both of these,\nafter thorough study, had convinced themselves that the Copernican\nsystem was true, but neither of them was allowed to tell this truth to\nhis students. Neither in his lecture announcements nor in his published\nworks did Rheticus venture to make the new system known, and he at\nlast gave up his professorship and left Wittenberg, that he might have\nfreedom to seek and tell the truth. Reinhold was even more wretchedly\nhumiliated. Convinced of the truth of the new theory, he was obliged to\nadvocate the old; if he mentioned the Copernican ideas, he was compelled\nto overlay them with the Ptolemaic. Even this was not thought safe\nenough, and in 1571 the subject was intrusted to Peucer. He was\neminently \"sound,\" and denounced the Copernican theory in his lectures\nas \"absurd, and unfit to be introduced into the schools.\"\n\nTo clinch anti-scientific ideas more firmly into German Protestant\nteaching, Rector Hensel wrote a text-book for schools entitled The\nRestored Mosaic System of the World, which showed the Copernican\nastronomy to be unscriptural.\n\nDoubtless this has a far-off sound; yet its echo comes very near modern\nProtestantism in the expulsion of Dr. Woodrow by the Presbyterian\nauthorities in South Carolina; the expulsion of Prof. Winchell by the\nMethodist Episcopal authorities in Tennessee; the expulsion of Prof. Toy\nby Baptist authorities in Kentucky; the expulsion of the professors at\nBeyrout under authority of American Protestant divines--all for holding\nthe doctrines of modern science, and in the last years of the nineteenth\ncentury.(52)\n\n\n     (52) For treatment of Copernican ideas by the people, see The Catholic\nWorld, as above; also Melanchthon, ubi supra; also Prowe, Copernicus,\nBerlin, 1883, vol. i, p. 269, note; also pp. 279, 280; also Madler, i,\np.167. For Rector Hensel, see Rev. Dr. Shield's Final Philosophy, p. 60.\nFor details of recent Protestant efforts against evolution doctrines,\nsee the chapter on the Fall of Man and Anthropology in this work.\n\n\nBut the new truth could not be concealed; it could neither be laughed\ndown nor frowned down. Many minds had received it, but within the\nhearing of the papacy only one tongue appears to have dared to utter it\nclearly. This new warrior was that strange mortal, Giordano Bruno. He\nwas hunted from land to land, until at last he turned on his pursuers\nwith fearful invectives. For this he was entrapped at Venice, imprisoned\nduring six years in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Rome, then burned\nalive, and his ashes scattered to the winds. Still, the new truth lived\non.\n\nTen years after the martyrdom of Bruno the truth of Copernicus's\ndoctrine was established by the telescope of Galileo.(53)\n\n\n     (53) For Bruno, see Bartholmess, Vie de Jordano Bruno, Paris, 1846,\nvol. i, p.121 and pp. 212 et seq.; also Berti, Vita di Giordano Bruno,\nFirenze, 1868, chap. xvi; also Whewell, vol. i, pp. 272, 273. That\nWhewell is somewhat hasty in attributing Bruno's punishment entirely\nto the Spaccio della Bestia Trionfante will be evident, in spite\nof Montucla, to anyone who reads the account of the persecution in\nBartholmess or Berti; and even if Whewell be right, the Spaccio would\nnever have been written but for Bruno's indignation at ecclesiastical\noppression. See Tiraboschi, vol. vii, pp. 466 et seq.\n\n\nHerein was fulfilled one of the most touching of prophecies. Years\nbefore, the opponents of Copernicus had said to him, \"If your doctrines\nwere true, Venus would show phases like the moon.\" Copernicus answered:\n\"You are right; I know not what to say; but God is good, and will in\ntime find an answer to this objection.\" The God-given answer came when,\nin 1611, the rude telescope of Galileo showed the phases of Venus.(54)\n\n\n     (54) For the relation of these discoveries to Copernicus's work, see\nDelambre, Histoire de l'Astronomie moderne, discours preliminaire,\np. xiv; also Laplace, Systeme du Monde, vol. i, p. 326; and for more\ncareful statements, Kepler's Opera Omnia, edit. Frisch, tome ii, p. 464.\nFor Copernicus's prophecy, see Cantu, Histoire Univerelle, vol. xv, p.\n473. (Cantu was an eminent Roman Catholic.)\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE WAR UPON GALILEO.\n\n\nOn this new champion, Galileo, the whole war was at last concentrated.\nHis discoveries had clearly taken the Copernican theory out of the list\nof hypotheses, and had placed it before the world as a truth. Against\nhim, then, the war was long and bitter. The supporters of what was\ncalled \"sound learning\" declared his discoveries deceptions and his\nannouncements blasphemy. Semi-scientific professors, endeavouring to\ncurry favour with the Church, attacked him with sham science;\nearnest preachers attacked him with perverted Scripture; theologians,\ninquisitors, congregations of cardinals, and at last two popes\ndealt with him, and, as was supposed, silenced his impious doctrine\nforever.(55)\n\n\n     (55) A very curious example of this sham science employed by theologians\nis seen in the argument, frequently used at that time, that, if the\nearth really moved, a stone falling from a height would fall back of a\npoint immediately below its point of starting. This is used by Fromundus\nwith great effect. It appears never to have occurred to him to test the\nmatter by dropping a stone from the topmast of a ship. Bezenburg has\nmathematically demonstrated just such an aberration in falling bodies,\nas is mathematically required by the diurnal motion of the earth. See\nJevons, Principles of Science, pp. 388, 389, second edition, 1877.\n\n\nI shall present this warfare at some length because, so far as I can\nfind, no careful summary of it has been given in our language, since the\nwhole history was placed in a new light by the revelations of the trial\ndocuments in the Vatican Library, honestly published for the first\ntime by L'Epinois in 1867, and since that by Gebler, Berti, Favaro, and\nothers.\n\nThe first important attack on Galileo began in 1610, when he announced\nthat his telescope had revealed the moons of the planet Jupiter. The\nenemy saw that this took the Copernican theory out of the realm of\nhypothesis, and they gave battle immediately. They denounced both\nhis method and its results as absurd and impious. As to his method,\nprofessors bred in the \"safe science\" favoured by the Church argued that\nthe divinely appointed way of arriving at the truth in astronomy was\nby theological reasoning on texts of Scripture; and, as to his\nresults, they insisted, first, that Aristotle knew nothing of these new\nrevelations; and, next, that the Bible showed by all applicable types\nthat there could be only seven planets; that this was proved by the\nseven golden candlesticks of the Apocalypse, by the seven-branched\ncandlestick of the tabernacle, and by the seven churches of Asia; that\nfrom Galileo's doctrine consequences must logically result destructive\nto Christian truth. Bishops and priests therefore warned their flocks,\nand multitudes of the faithful besought the Inquisition to deal speedily\nand sharply with the heretic.(56)\n\n\n\n     (56) See Delambre on the discovery of the satellites of Jupiter as\nthe turning-point with the heliocentric doctrine. As to its effects\non Bacon, see Jevons, p. 638, as above. For argument drawn from the\ncandlestick and the seven churches, see Delambre, p. 20.\n\n\nIn vain did Galileo try to prove the existence of satellites by showing\nthem to the doubters through his telescope: they either declared it\nimpious to look, or, if they did look, denounced the satellites as\nillusions from the devil. Good Father Clavius declared that \"to see\nsatellites of Jupiter, men had to make an instrument which would\ncreate them.\" In vain did Galileo try to save the great truths he\nhad discovered by his letters to the Benedictine Castelli and the\nGrand-Duchess Christine, in which he argued that literal biblical\ninterpretation should not be applied to science; it was answered that\nsuch an argument only made his heresy more detestable; that he was\n\"worse than Luther or Calvin.\"\n\nThe war on the Copernican theory, which up to that time had been carried\non quietly, now flamed forth. It was declared that the doctrine was\nproved false by the standing still of the sun for Joshua, by the\ndeclarations that \"the foundations of the earth are fixed so firm that\nthey can not be moved,\" and that the sun \"runneth about from one end of\nthe heavens to the other.\"(57)\n\n\n     (57) For principle points as given, see Libri, Histoire des Sciences\nmathematiques en Italie, vol. iv, p. 211; De Morgan, Paradoxes, p. 26,\nfor account of Father Clavius. It is interesting to know that Clavius,\nin his last years, acknowledged that \"the whole system of the heavens is\nbroken down, and must be mended,\" Cantu, Histoire Universelle, vol.\nxv, p. 478. See Th. Martin, Galilee, pp. 34, 208, and 266; also Heller,\nGeschichte der Physik, Stuttgart, 1882, vol. i, p. 366. For the original\ndocuments, see L'Epinois, pp.34 and 36; or better, Gebler's careful\nedition of the trial (Die Acten des Galileischen Processes, Stuttgart,\n1877), pp. 47 et seq. Martin's translation seems somewhat too free. See\nalso Gebler, Galileo Galilei, English translation, London, 1879, pp.\n76-78; also Reusch, Der Process Galilei's und die Jesuiten, Bonn, 1879,\nchaps. ix, x, xi.\n\n\nBut the little telescope of Galileo still swept the heavens, and another\nrevelation was announced--the mountains and valleys in the moon. This\nbrought on another attack. It was declared that this, and the statement\nthat the moon shines by light reflected from the sun, directly\ncontradict the statement in Genesis that the moon is \"a great light.\"\nTo make the matter worse, a painter, placing the moon in a religious\npicture in its usual position beneath the feet of the Blessed Virgin,\noutlined on its surface mountains and valleys; this was denounced as a\nsacrilege logically resulting from the astronomer's heresy.\n\nStill another struggle was aroused when the hated telescope revealed\nspots upon the sun, and their motion indicating the sun's rotation.\nMonsignor Elci, head of the University of Pisa, forbade the astronomer\nCastelli to mention these spots to his students. Father Busaeus, at the\nUniversity of Innspruck, forbade the astronomer Scheiner, who had also\ndiscovered the spots and proposed a SAFE explanation of them, to allow\nthe new discovery to be known there. At the College of Douay and the\nUniversity of Louvain this discovery was expressly placed under the ban,\nand this became the general rule among the Catholic universities and\ncolleges of Europe. The Spanish universities were especially intolerant\nof this and similar ideas, and up to a recent period their presentation\nwas strictly forbidden in the most important university of all--that of\nSalamanca.(58)\n\n\n     (58) See Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, vol. iii.\n\n\nSuch are the consequences of placing the instruction of men's minds in\nthe hands of those mainly absorbed in saving men's souls. Nothing\ncould be more in accordance with the idea recently put forth by sundry\necclesiastics, Catholic and Protestant, that the Church alone\nis empowered to promulgate scientific truth or direct university\ninstruction. But science gained a victory here also. Observations of\nthe solar spots were reported not only from Galileo in Italy, but from\nFabricius in Holland. Father Scheiner then endeavoured to make the\nusual compromise between theology and science. He promulgated a\npseudo-scientific theory, which only provoked derision.\n\nThe war became more and more bitter. The Dominican Father Caccini\npreached a sermon from the text, \"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing\nup into heaven?\" and this wretched pun upon the great astronomer's name\nushered in sharper weapons; for, before Caccini ended, he insisted that\n\"geometry is of the devil,\" and that \"mathematicians should be banished\nas the authors of all heresies.\" The Church authorities gave Caccini\npromotion.\n\nFather Lorini proved that Galileo's doctrine was not only heretical but\n\"atheistic,\" and besought the Inquisition to intervene. The Bishop\nof Fiesole screamed in rage against the Copernican system, publicly\ninsulted Galileo, and denounced him to the Grand-Duke. The Archbishop\nof Pisa secretly sought to entrap Galileo and deliver him to the\nInquisition at Rome. The Archbishop of Florence solemnly condemned the\nnew doctrines as unscriptural; and Paul V, while petting Galileo, and\ninviting him as the greatest astronomer of the world to visit Rome, was\nsecretly moving the Archbishop of Pisa to pick up evidence against the\nastronomer.\n\nBut by far the most terrible champion who now appeared was Cardinal\nBellarmin, one of the greatest theologians the world has known. He was\nearnest, sincere, and learned, but insisted on making science conform to\nScripture. The weapons which men of Bellarmin's stamp used were purely\ntheological. They held up before the world the dreadful consequences\nwhich must result to Christian theology were the heavenly bodies proved\nto revolve about the sun and not about the earth. Their most tremendous\ndogmatic engine was the statement that \"his pretended discovery vitiates\nthe whole Christian plan of salvation.\" Father Lecazre declared \"it\ncasts suspicion on the doctrine of the incarnation.\" Others declared,\n\"It upsets the whole basis of theology. If the earth is a planet, and\nonly one among several planets, it can not be that any such great things\nhave been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If\nthere are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be\ninhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How\ncan they trace back their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have\nbeen redeemed by the Saviour?\" Nor was this argument confined to the\ntheologians of the Roman Church; Melanchthon, Protestant as he was, had\nalready used it in his attacks on Copernicus and his school.\n\nIn addition to this prodigious theological engine of war there was kept\nup a fire of smaller artillery in the shape of texts and scriptural\nextracts.\n\nBut the war grew still more bitter, and some weapons used in it are\nworth examining. They are very easily examined, for they are to be found\non all the battlefields of science; but on that field they were used\nwith more effect than on almost any other. These weapons are the\nepithets \"infidel\" and \"atheist.\" They have been used against almost\nevery man who has ever done anything new for his fellow-men. The list of\nthose who have been denounced as \"infidel\" and \"atheist\" includes\nalmost all great men of science, general scholars, inventors, and\nphilanthropists.\n\nThe purest Christian life, the noblest Christian character, have not\navailed to shield combatants. Christians like Isaac Newton, Pascal,\nLocke, Milton, and even Fenelon and Howard, have had this weapon\nhurled against them. Of all proofs of the existence of a God, those of\nDescartes have been wrought most thoroughly into the minds of modern\nmen; yet the Protestant theologians of Holland sought to bring him to\ntorture and to death by the charge of atheism, and the Roman Catholic\ntheologians of France thwarted him during his life and prevented any due\nhonours to him after his death.(59)\n\n\n     (59) For various objectors and objections to Galileo by his\ncontemporaries, see Libri, Histoire des Sciences mathematiques en\nItalie, vol. iv, p. 233, 234; also Martin, Vie de Galilee. For Father\nLecazre's argument, see Flammarion, Mondes imaginaires et mondes reels,\n6th ed., pp. 315, 316. For Melanchthon's argument, see his Initia in\nOpera, vol. iii, Halle, 1846.\n\n\nThese epithets can hardly be classed with civilized weapons. They are\nburning arrows; they set fire to masses of popular prejudice, always\nobscuring the real question, sometimes destroying the attacking party.\nThey are poisoned weapons. They pierce the hearts of loving women; they\nalienate dear children; they injure a man after life is ended, for they\nleave poisoned wounds in the hearts of those who loved him best--fears\nfor his eternal salvation, dread of the Divine wrath upon him. Of\ncourse, in these days these weapons, though often effective in vexing\ngood men and in scaring good women, are somewhat blunted; indeed, they\nnot infrequently injure the assailants more than the assailed. So it was\nnot in the days of Galileo; they were then in all their sharpness and\nvenom.(60)\n\n\n     (60) For curious exemplification of the way in which these weapons\nhave been hurled, see lists of persons charged with \"infidelity\" and\n\"atheism,\" in the Dictionnaire des Athees., Paris, (1800); also Lecky,\nHistory of Rationalism, vol. ii, p. 50. For the case of Descartes, see\nSaisset, Descartes et ses Precurseurs, pp. 103, 110. For the facility\nwith which the term \"atheist\" has been applied from the early Aryans\ndown to believers in evolution, see Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. i, p.\n420.\n\n\nYet a baser warfare was waged by the Archbishop of Pisa. This man, whose\ncathedral derives its most enduring fame from Galileo's deduction of a\ngreat natural law from the swinging lamp before its altar, was not an\narchbishop after the noble mould of Borromeo and Fenelon and Cheverus.\nSadly enough for the Church and humanity, he was simply a zealot and\nintriguer: he perfected the plan for entrapping the great astronomer.\n\nGalileo, after his discoveries had been denounced, had written to his\nfriend Castelli and to the Grand-Duchess Christine two letters to show\nthat his discoveries might be reconciled with Scripture. On a hint from\nthe Inquisition at Rome, the archbishop sought to get hold of these\nletters and exhibit them as proofs that Galileo had uttered heretical\nviews of theology and of Scripture, and thus to bring him into the\nclutch of the Inquisition. The archbishop begs Castelli, therefore, to\nlet him see the original letter in the handwriting of Galileo. Castelli\ndeclines. The archbishop then, while, as is now revealed, writing\nconstantly and bitterly to the Inquisition against Galileo, professes\nto Castelli the greatest admiration of Galileo's genius and a sincere\ndesire to know more of his discoveries. This not succeeding, the\narchbishop at last throws off the mask and resorts to open attack.\n\nThe whole struggle to crush Galileo and to save him would be\namusing were it not so fraught with evil. There were intrigues and\ncounter-intrigues, plots and counter-plots, lying and spying; and in\nthe thickest of this seething, squabbling, screaming mass of priests,\nbishops, archbishops, and cardinals, appear two popes, Paul V and Urban\nVIII. It is most suggestive to see in this crisis of the Church, at the\ntomb of the prince of the apostles, on the eve of the greatest errors\nin Church policy the world has known, in all the intrigues and\ndeliberations of these consecrated leaders of the Church, no more\nevidence of the guidance or presence of the Holy Spirit than in a caucus\nof New York politicians at Tammany Hall.\n\nBut the opposing powers were too strong. In 1615 Galileo was summoned\nbefore the Inquisition at Rome, and the mine which had been so long\npreparing was sprung. Sundry theologians of the Inquisition having\nbeen ordered to examine two propositions which had been extracted from\nGalileo's letters on the solar spots, solemnly considered these points\nduring about a month and rendered their unanimous decision as follows:\n\"THE FIRST PROPOSITION, THAT THE SUN IS THE CENTRE AND DOES NOT REVOLVE\nABOUT THE EARTH, IS FOOLISH, ABSURD, FALSE IN THEOLOGY, AND HERETICAL,\nBECAUSE EXPRESSLY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE\"; AND \"THE SECOND\nPROPOSITION, THAT THE EARTH IS NOT THE CENTRE BUT REVOLVES ABOUT THE\nSUN, IS ABSURD, FALSE IN PHILOSOPHY, AND, FROM A THEOLOGICAL POINT OF\nVIEW AT LEAST, OPPOSED TO THE TRUE FAITH.\"\n\nThe Pope himself, Paul V, now intervened again: he ordered that Galileo\nbe brought before the Inquisition. Then the greatest man of science in\nthat age was brought face to face with the greatest theologian--Galileo\nwas confronted by Bellarmin. Bellarmin shows Galileo the error of his\nopinion and orders him to renounce it. De Lauda, fortified by a letter\nfrom the Pope, gives orders that the astronomer be placed in the\ndungeons of the Inquisition should he refuse to yield. Bellarmin now\ncommands Galileo, \"in the name of His Holiness the Pope and the whole\nCongregation of the Holy Office, to relinquish altogether the opinion\nthat the sun is the centre of the world and immovable, and that the\nearth moves, nor henceforth to hold, teach, or defend it in any way\nwhatsoever, verbally or in writing.\" This injunction Galileo acquiesces\nin and promises to obey.(61)\n\n\n     (61) I am aware that the theory proposed by Wohwill and developed by\nGebler denied that this promise was ever made by Galileo, and holds that\nthe passage was a forgery devised later by the Church rulers to justify\nthe proceedings of 1632 and 1644. This would make the conduct of the\nChurch worse, but authorities as eminent consider the charge not proved.\nA careful examination of the documents seems to disprove it.\n\n\nThis was on the 26th of February, 1616. About a fortnight later the\nCongregation of the Index, moved thereto, as the letters and documents\nnow brought to light show, by Pope Paul V, solemnly rendered a decree\nthat \"THE DOCTRINE OF THE DOUBLE MOTION OF THE EARTH ABOUT ITS AXIS AND\nABOUT THE SUN IS FALSE, AND ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE\"; and\nthat this opinion must neither be taught nor advocated. The same decree\ncondemned all writings of Copernicus and \"ALL WRITINGS WHICH AFFIRM THE\nMOTION OF THE EARTH.\" The great work of Copernicus was interdicted until\ncorrected in accordance with the views of the Inquisition; and the works\nof Galileo and Kepler, though not mentioned by name at that time, were\nincluded among those implicitly condemned as \"affirming the motion of\nthe earth.\"\n\nThe condemnations were inscribed upon the Index; and, finally, the\npapacy committed itself as an infallible judge and teacher to the world\nby prefixing to the Index the usual papal bull giving its monitions the\nmost solemn papal sanction. To teach or even read the works denounced or\npassages condemned was to risk persecution in this world and damnation\nin the next. Science had apparently lost the decisive battle.\n\nFor a time after this judgment Galileo remained in Rome, apparently\nhoping to find some way out of this difficulty; but he soon discovered\nthe hollowness of the protestations made to him by ecclesiastics, and,\nbeing recalled to Florence, remained in his hermitage near the city in\nsilence, working steadily, indeed, but not publishing anything save by\nprivate letters to friends in various parts of Europe.\n\nBut at last a better vista seemed to open for him. Cardinal Barberini,\nwho had seemed liberal and friendly, became pope under the name of Urban\nVIII. Galileo at this conceived new hopes, and allowed his continued\nallegiance to the Copernican system to be known. New troubles ensued.\nGalileo was induced to visit Rome again, and Pope Urban tried to cajole\nhim into silence, personally taking the trouble to show him his errors\nby argument. Other opponents were less considerate, for works appeared\nattacking his ideas--works all the more unmanly, since their authors\nknew that Galileo was restrained by force from defending himself. Then,\ntoo, as if to accumulate proofs of the unfitness of the Church to\ntake charge of advanced instruction, his salary as a professor at the\nUniversity of Pisa was taken from him, and sapping and mining began.\nJust as the Archbishop of Pisa some years before had tried to betray him\nwith honeyed words to the Inquisition, so now Father Grassi tried\nit, and, after various attempts to draw him out by flattery, suddenly\ndenounced his scientific ideas as \"leading to a denial of the Real\nPresence in the Eucharist.\"\n\nFor the final assault upon him a park of heavy artillery was at last\nwheeled into place. It may be seen on all the scientific battlefields.\nIt consists of general denunciation; and in 1631 Father Melchior\nInchofer, of the Jesuits, brought his artillery to bear upon Galileo\nwith this declaration: \"The opinion of the earth's motion is of all\nheresies the most abominable, the most pernicious, the most scandalous;\nthe immovability of the earth is thrice sacred; argument against the\nimmortality of the soul, the existence of God, and the incarnation,\nshould be tolerated sooner than an argument to prove that the earth\nmoves.\" From the other end of Europe came a powerful echo.\n\nFrom the shadow of the Cathedral of Antwerp, the noted theologian\nFromundus gave forth his famous treatise, the Ant-Aristarclius. Its very\ntitle-page was a contemptuous insult to the memory of Copernicus, since\nit paraded the assumption that the new truth was only an exploded theory\nof a pagan astronomer. Fromundus declares that \"sacred Scripture fights\nagainst the Copernicans.\" To prove that the sun revolves about the\nearth, he cites the passage in the Psalms which speaks of the sun \"which\ncometh forth as a bridegroom out of his chamber.\" To prove that the\nearth stands still, he quotes a passage from Ecclesiastes, \"The earth\nstandeth fast forever.\" To show the utter futility of the Copernican\ntheory, he declares that, if it were true, \"the wind would constantly\nblow from the east\"; and that \"buildings and the earth itself would fly\noff with such a rapid motion that men would have to be provided with\nclaws like cats to enable them to hold fast to the earth's surface.\"\nGreatest weapon of all, he works up, by the use of Aristotle and St.\nThomas Aquinas, a demonstration from theology and science combined, that\nthe earth MUST stand in the centre, and that the sun MUST revolve about\nit.(62) Nor was it merely fanatics who opposed the truth revealed by\nCopernicus; such strong men as Jean Bodin, in France, and Sir Thomas\nBrowne, in England, declared against it as evidently contrary to Holy\nScripture.\n\n\n     (62) For Father Inchofer's attack, see his Tractatus Syllepticus, cited\nin Galileo's letter to Deodati, July 28, 1634. For Fromundus's more\nfamous attack, see his Ant-Aristarchus, already cited, passim, but\nespecially the heading of chap. vi, and the argument in chapters x and\nxi. A copy of this work may be found in the Astor Library at New York,\nand another in the White Library at Cornell University. For interesting\nreferences to one of Fromundus's arguments, showing, by a mixture of\nmathematics and theology, that the earth is the centre of the universe,\nsee Quetelet, Histoire des Sciences mathematiques et physiques,\nBruxelles, 1864, p. 170; also Madler, Geschichte der Astronomie, vol.\ni, p. 274. For Bodin's opposition to the Copernican theory, see Hallam,\nLiterature of Europe; also Lecky. For Sir Thomas Brown, see his Vulgar\nand Common Errors, book iv, chap. v; and as to the real reason for his\ndisbelief in the Copernican view, see Dr. Johnson's preface to his Life\nof Browne, vol. i, p. xix, of his collected works.\n\n\n\n\nIV. VICTORY OF THE CHURCH OVER GALILEO.\n\n\nWhile news of triumphant attacks upon him and upon the truth he had\nestablished were coming in from all parts of Europe, Galileo prepared a\ncareful treatise in the form of a dialogue, exhibiting the arguments for\nand against the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, and offered to submit\nto any conditions that the Church tribunals might impose, if they\nwould allow it to be printed. At last, after discussions which extended\nthrough eight years, they consented, imposing a humiliating condition--a\npreface written in accordance with the ideas of Father Ricciardi, Master\nof the Sacred Palace, and signed by Galileo, in which the Copernican\ntheory was virtually exhibited as a play of the imagination, and not\nat all as opposed to the Ptolemaic doctrine reasserted in 1616 by the\nInquisition under the direction of Pope Paul V.\n\nThis new work of Galileo--the Dialogo--appeared in 1632, and met with\nprodigious success. It put new weapons into the hands of the supporters\nof the Copernican theory. The pious preface was laughed at from one end\nof Europe to the other. This roused the enemy; the Jesuits, Dominicans,\nand the great majority of the clergy returned to the attack more violent\nthan ever, and in the midst of them stood Pope Urban VIII, most bitter\nof all. His whole power was now thrown against Galileo. He was touched\nin two points: first, in his personal vanity, for Galileo had put the\nPope's arguments into the mouth of one of the persons in the dialogue\nand their refutation into the mouth of another; but, above all, he was\ntouched in his religious feelings. Again and again His Holiness\ninsisted to all comers on the absolute and specific declarations of Holy\nScripture, which prove that the sun and heavenly bodies revolve about\nthe earth, and declared that to gainsay them is simply to dispute\nrevelation. Certainly, if one ecclesiastic more than another ever seemed\nNOT under the care of the Spirit of Truth, it was Urban VIII in all this\nmatter.\n\nHerein was one of the greatest pieces of ill fortune that has ever\nbefallen the older Church. Had Pope Urban been broad-minded and tolerant\nlike Benedict XIV, or had he been taught moderation by adversity like\nPius VII, or had he possessed the large scholarly qualities of Leo XIII,\nnow reigning, the vast scandal of the Galileo case would never have\nburdened the Church: instead of devising endless quibbles and special\npleadings to escape responsibility for this colossal blunder, its\ndefenders could have claimed forever for the Church the glory of\nfearlessly initiating a great epoch in human thought.\n\nBut it was not so to be. Urban was not merely Pope; he was also a prince\nof the house of Barberini, and therefore doubly angry that his arguments\nhad been publicly controverted.\n\nThe opening strategy of Galileo's enemies was to forbid the sale of his\nwork; but this was soon seen to be unavailing, for the first edition had\nalready been spread throughout Europe. Urban now became more angry than\never, and both Galileo and his works were placed in the hands of the\nInquisition. In vain did the good Benedictine Castelli urge that Galileo\nwas entirely respectful to the Church; in vain did he insist that\n\"nothing that can be done can now hinder the earth from revolving.\"\nHe was dismissed in disgrace, and Galileo was forced to appear in the\npresence of the dread tribunal without defender or adviser. There, as\nwas so long concealed, but as is now fully revealed, he was menaced with\ntorture again and again by express order of Pope Urban, and, as is also\nthoroughly established from the trial documents themselves, forced to\nabjure under threats, and subjected to imprisonment by command of\nthe Pope; the Inquisition deferring in this whole matter to the papal\nauthority. All the long series of attempts made in the supposed interest\nof the Church to mystify these transactions have at last failed. The\nworld knows now that Galileo was subjected certainly to indignity, to\nimprisonment, and to threats equivalent to torture, and was at last\nforced to pronounce publicly and on his knees his recantation, as\nfollows:\n\n\"I, Galileo, being in my seventieth year, being a prisoner and on my\nknees, and before your Eminences, having before my eyes the Holy Gospel,\nwhich I touch with my hands, abjure, curse, and detest the error and the\nheresy of the movement of the earth.\"(63)\n\n\n     (63) For various utterances of Pope Urban against the Copernican theory\nat this period, see extracts from the original documents given by\nGebler. For punishment of those who had shown some favor to Galileo,\nsee various citations, and especially those from the Vatican manuscript,\nGebler, p. 216. As to the text of the abjuration, see L'Epinois; also\nPolacco, Anticopernicus, etc., Venice, 1644; and for a discussion\nregarding its publication, see Favaro, Miscellanea Galileana, p. 804. It\nis not probable that torture in the ordinary sense was administered to\nGalileo, though it was threatened. See Th. Martin, Vie de Galilee, for a\nfair summing up of the case.\n\n\nHe was vanquished indeed, for he had been forced, in the face of all\ncoming ages, to perjure himself. To complete his dishonour, he was\nobliged to swear that he would denounce to the Inquisition any other man\nof science whom he should discover to be supporting the \"heresy of the\nmotion of the earth.\"\n\nMany have wondered at this abjuration, and on account of it have denied\nto Galileo the title of martyr. But let such gainsayers consider the\ncircumstances. Here was an old man--one who had reached the allotted\nthreescore years and ten--broken with disappointments, worn out with\nlabours and cares, dragged from Florence to Rome, with the threat from\nthe Pope himself that if he delayed he should be \"brought in chains\";\nsick in body and mind, given over to his oppressors by the Grand-Duke\nwho ought to have protected him, and on his arrival in Rome threatened\nwith torture. What the Inquisition was he knew well. He could remember\nas but of yesterday the burning of Giordano Bruno in that same city for\nscientific and philosophic heresy; he could remember, too, that only\neight years before this very time De Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro,\nhaving been seized by the Inquisition for scientific and other heresies,\nhad died in a dungeon, and that his body and his writings had been\npublicly burned.\n\nTo the end of his life--nay, after his life was ended--the persecution\nof Galileo was continued. He was kept in exile from his family, from his\nfriends, from his noble employments, and was held rigidly to his\npromise not to speak of his theory. When, in the midst of intense bodily\nsufferings from disease, and mental sufferings from calamities in his\nfamily, he besought some little liberty, he was met with threats of\ncommittal to a dungeon. When, at last, a special commission had reported\nto the ecclesiastical authorities that he had become blind and wasted\nwith disease and sorrow, he was allowed a little more liberty, but\nthat little was hampered by close surveillance. He was forced to bear\ncontemptible attacks on himself and on his works in silence; to see the\nmen who had befriended him severely punished; Father Castelli banished;\nRicciardi, the Master of the Sacred Palace, and Ciampoli, the papal\nsecretary, thrown out of their positions by Pope Urban, and the\nInquisitor at Florence reprimanded for having given permission to print\nGalileo's work. He lived to see the truths he had established carefully\nweeded out from all the Church colleges and universities in Europe; and,\nwhen in a scientific work he happened to be spoken of as \"renowned,\" the\nInquisition ordered the substitution of the word \"notorious.\"(64)\n\n\n     (64) For the substitution of the word \"notorious\" for \"renowned\" by\norder of the Inquisition, see Martin, p.227.\n\n\nAnd now measures were taken to complete the destruction of the\nCopernican theory, with Galileo's proofs of it. On the 16th of June,\n1633, the Holy Congregation, with the permission of the reigning Pope,\nordered the sentence upon Galileo, and his recantation, to be sent to\nall the papal nuncios throughout Europe, as well as to all archbishops,\nbishops, and inquisitors in Italy and this document gave orders that the\nsentence and abjuration be made known \"to your vicars, that you and all\nprofessors of philosophy and mathematics may have knowledge of it, that\nthey may know why we proceeded against the said Galileo, and recognise\nthe gravity of his error, in order that they may avoid it, and thus not\nincur the penalties which they would have to suffer in case they fell\ninto the same.\"(65)\n\n\n     (65) For a copy of this document, see Gebler, p. 269. As to the\nspread of this and similar documents notifying Europe of Galileo's\ncondemnation, see Favaro, pp. 804, 805.\n\n\nAs a consequence, the processors of mathematics and astronomy in various\nuniversities of Europe were assembled and these documents were read to\nthem. To the theological authorities this gave great satisfaction. The\nRector of the University of Douay, referring to the opinion of Galileo,\nwrote to the papal nuncio at Brussels: \"The professors of our university\nare so opposed to this fanatical opinion that they have always held that\nit must be banished from the schools. In our English college at Douay\nthis paradox has never been approved and never will be.\"\n\nStill another step was taken: the Inquisitors were ordered, especially\nin Italy, not to permit the publication of a new edition of any\nof Galileo's works, or of any similar writings. On the other hand,\ntheologians were urged, now that Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler were\nsilenced, to reply to them with tongue and pen. Europe was flooded with\nthese theological refutations of the Copernican system.\n\nTo make all complete, there was prefixed to the Index of the Church,\nforbidding \"all writings which affirm the motion of the earth,\" a bull\nsigned by the reigning Pope, which, by virtue of his infallibility as\na divinely guided teacher in matters of faith and morals, clinched this\ncondemnation into the consciences of the whole Christian world.\n\nFrom the mass of books which appeared under the auspices of the Church\nimmediately after the condemnation of Galileo, for the purpose of\nrooting out every vestige of the hated Copernican theory from the mind\nof the world, two may be taken as typical. The first of these was a\nwork by Scipio Chiaramonti, dedicated to Cardinal Barberini. Among\nhis arguments against the double motion of the earth may be cited the\nfollowing:\n\n\"Animals, which move, have limbs and muscles; the earth has no limbs\nor muscles, therefore it does not move. It is angels who make Saturn,\nJupiter, the sun, etc., turn round. If the earth revolves, it must also\nhave an angel in the centre to set it in motion; but only devils live\nthere; it would therefore be a devil who would impart motion to the\nearth....\n\n\"The planets, the sun, the fixed stars, all belong to one\nspecies--namely, that of stars. It seems, therefore, to be a grievous\nwrong to place the earth, which is a sink of impurity, among these\nheavenly bodies, which are pure and divine things.\"\n\nThe next, which I select from the mass of similar works, is the\nAnticopernicus Catholicus of Polacco. It was intended to deal a\nfinishing stroke at Galileo's heresy. In this it is declared:\n\n\"The Scripture always represents the earth as at rest, and the sun and\nmoon as in motion; or, if these latter bodies are ever represented as at\nrest, Scripture represents this as the result of a great miracle....\n\n\"These writings must be prohibited, because they teach certain\nprinciples about the position and motion of the terrestrial globe\nrepugnant to Holy Scripture and to the Catholic interpretation of it,\nnot as hypotheses but as established facts....\"\n\nSpeaking of Galileo's book, Polacco says that it \"smacked of\nCopernicanism,\" and that, \"when this was shown to the Inquisition,\nGalileo was thrown into prison and was compelled to utterly abjure the\nbaseness of this erroneous dogma.\"\n\nAs to the authority of the cardinals in their decree, Polacco asserts\nthat, since they are the \"Pope's Council\" and his \"brothers,\" their\nwork is one, except that the Pope is favoured with special divine\nenlightenment.\n\nHaving shown that the authority of the Scriptures, of popes, and of\ncardinals is against the new astronomy, he gives a refutation based on\nphysics. He asks: \"If we concede the motion of the earth, why is it that\nan arrow shot into the air falls back to the same spot, while the earth\nand all things on it have in the meantime moved very rapidly toward\nthe east? Who does not see that great confusion would result from this\nmotion?\"\n\nNext he argues from metaphysics, as follows: \"The Copernican theory of\nthe earth's motion is against the nature of the earth itself, because\nthe earth is not only cold but contains in itself the principle of cold;\nbut cold is opposed to motion, and even destroys it--as is evident in\nanimals, which become motionless when they become cold.\"\n\nFinally, he clinches all with a piece of theological reasoning, as\nfollows: \"Since it can certainly be gathered from Scripture that the\nheavens move above the earth, and since a circular motion requires\nsomething immovable around which to move,... the earth is at the centre\nof the universe.\"(66)\n\n\n     (66) For Chiaramonti's book and selections given, see Gebler as above,\np. 271. For Polacco, see his work as cited, especially Assertiones i,\nii, vii, xi, xiii, lxxiii, clcccvii, and others. The work is in the\nWhite Library at Cornell University. The date of it is 1644.\n\n\nBut any sketch of the warfare between theology and science in this field\nwould be incomplete without some reference to the treatment of Galileo\nafter his death. He had begged to be buried in his family tomb in Santa\nCroce; this request was denied. His friends wished to erect a monument\nover him; this, too, was refused. Pope Urban said to the ambassador\nNiccolini that \"it would be an evil example for the world if such\nhonours were rendered to a man who had been brought before the Roman\nInquisition for an opinion so false and erroneous; who had communicated\nit to many others, and who had given so great a scandal to Christendom.\"\nIn accordance, therefore, with the wish of the Pope and the orders of\nthe Inquisition, Galileo was buried ignobly, apart from his family,\nwithout fitting ceremony, without monument, without epitaph. Not until\nforty years after did Pierrozzi dare write an inscription to be placed\nabove his bones; not until a hundred years after did Nelli dare transfer\nhis remains to a suitable position in Santa Croce, and erect a monument\nabove them. Even then the old conscientious hostility burst forth: the\nInquisition was besought to prevent such honours to \"a man condemned for\nnotorious errors\"; and that tribunal refused to allow any epitaph to be\nplaced above him which had not been submitted to its censorship. Nor has\nthat old conscientious consistency in hatred yet fully relented: hardly\na generation since has not seen some ecclesiastic, like Marini or De\nBonald or Rallaye or De Gabriac, suppressing evidence, or torturing\nexpressions, or inventing theories to blacken the memory of Galileo\nand save the reputation of the Church. Nay, more: there are school\nhistories, widely used, which, in the supposed interest of the Church,\nmisrepresent in the grossest manner all these transactions in which\nGalileo was concerned. Sancta simplicitas! The Church has no worse\nenemies than those who devise and teach these perversions. They\nare simply rooting out, in the long run, from the minds of the more\nthoughtful scholars, respect for the great organization which such\nwritings are supposed to serve.(67)\n\n\n     (67) For the persecutions of Galileo's memory after his death, see\nGebler and Wohwill, but especially Th. Martin, p. 243 and chaps. ix\nand x. For documentary proofs, see L'Epinois. For a collection of the\nslanderous theories invented against Galileo, see Martin, final chapters\nand appendix. Both these authors are devoted to the Church, but unlike\nMonsignor Marini, are too upright to resort to the pious fraud of\nsuppressing documents or interpolating pretended facts.\n\n\nThe Protestant Church was hardly less energetic against this new\nastronomy than the mother Church. The sacred science of the first\nLutheran Reformers was transmitted as a precious legacy, and in the next\ncentury was made much of by Calovius. His great learning and determined\northodoxy gave him the Lutheran leadership. Utterly refusing to look\nat ascertained facts, he cited the turning back of the shadow upon King\nHezekiah's dial and the standing still of the sun for Joshua, denied\nthe movement of the earth, and denounced the whole new view as clearly\nopposed to Scripture. To this day his arguments are repeated by sundry\northodox leaders of American Lutheranism.\n\nAs to the other branches of the Reformed Church, we have already seen\nhow Calvinists, Anglicans, and, indeed, Protestant sectarians generally,\nopposed the new truth.(68)\n\n\n     (68) For Clovius, see Zoeckler, Geschichte, vol. i, pp. 684 and 763. For\nCalvin and Turretin, see Shields, The Final Philosophy, pp. 60, 61.\n\n\nIn England, among the strict churchmen, the great Dr. South denounced\nthe Royal Society as \"irreligious,\" and among the Puritans the eminent\nJohn Owen declared that Newton's discoveries were \"built on fallible\nphenomena and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions against evident\ntestimonies of Scripture.\" Even Milton seems to have hesitated between\nthe two systems. At the beginning of the eighth book of Paradise Lost\nhe makes Adam state the difficulties of the Ptolemaic system, and then\nbrings forward an angel to make the usual orthodox answers. Later,\nMilton seems to lean toward the Copernican theory, for, referring to the\nearth, he says:\n\n\"Or she from west her silent course advance With inoffensive pace, that\nspinning sleeps On her soft axle, while she faces even And bears thee\nsoft with the smooth air along.\"\n\n\nEnglish orthodoxy continued to assert itself. In 1724 John Hutchinson,\nprofessor at Cambridge, published his Moses' Principia, a system of\nphilosophy in which he sought to build up a complete physical system of\nthe universe from the Bible. In this he assaulted the Newtonian theory\nas \"atheistic,\" and led the way for similar attacks by such Church\nteachers as Horne, Duncan Forbes, and Jones of Nayland. But one far\ngreater than these involved himself in this view. That same limitation\nof his reason by the simple statements of Scripture which led John\nWesley to declare that, \"unless witchcraft is true, nothing in the Bible\nis true,\" led him, while giving up the Ptolemaic theory and accepting in\na general way the Copernican, to suspect the demonstrations of\nNewton. Happily, his inborn nobility of character lifted him above any\nbitterness or persecuting spirit, or any imposition of doctrinal tests\nwhich could prevent those who came after him from finding their way to\nthe truth.\n\nBut in the midst of this vast expanse of theologic error signs of right\nreason began to appear, both in England and America. Noteworthy is it\nthat Cotton Mather, bitter as was his orthodoxy regarding witchcraft,\naccepted, in 1721, the modern astronomy fully, with all its\nconsequences.\n\nIn the following year came an even more striking evidence that the new\nscientific ideas were making their way in England. In 1722 Thomas Burnet\npublished the sixth edition of his Sacred Theory of the Earth. In this\nhe argues, as usual, to establish the scriptural doctrine of the\nearth's stability; but in his preface he sounds a remarkable warning.\nHe mentions the great mistake into which St. Augustine led the Church\nregarding the doctrine of the antipodes, and says, \"If within a\nfew years or in the next generation it should prove as certain and\ndemonstrable that the earth is moved, as it is now that there are\nantipodes, those that have been zealous against it, and engaged the\nScripture in the controversy, would have the same reason to repent of\ntheir forwardness that St. Augustine would now, if he were still alive.\"\n\nFortunately, too, Protestantism had no such power to oppose the\ndevelopment of the Copernican ideas as the older Church had enjoyed.\nYet there were some things in its warfare against science even more\nindefensible. In 1772 the famous English expedition for scientific\ndiscovery sailed from England under Captain Cook. Greatest by far of all\nthe scientific authorities chosen to accompany it was Dr. Priestley. Sir\nJoseph Banks had especially invited him. But the clergy of Oxford and\nCambridge interfered. Priestley was considered unsound in his views\nof the Trinity; it was evidently suspected that this might vitiate his\nastronomical observations; he was rejected, and the expedition crippled.\n\nThe orthodox view of astronomy lingered on in other branches of the\nProtestant Church. In Germany even Leibnitz attacked the Newtonian\ntheory of gravitation on theological grounds, though he found some\nlittle consolation in thinking that it might be used to support the\nLutheran doctrine of consubstantiation.\n\nIn Holland the Calvinistic Church was at first strenuous against the\nwhole new system, but we possess a comical proof that Calvinism even in\nits strongholds was powerless against it; for in 1642 Blaer published at\nAmsterdam his book on the use of globes, and, in order to be on the safe\nside, devoted one part of his work to the Ptolemaic and the other to the\nCopernican scheme, leaving the benevolent reader to take his choice.(69)\n\n\n     (69) For the attitude of Leibnetz, Hutchinson, and the others named\ntoward the Newtonian theory, see Lecky, History of England in the\nEighteenth Century, chap. ix. For John Wesley, see his Compendium of\nNatural Philosophy, being a Survey of the Wisdom of God in the Creation,\nLondon, 1784. See also Leslie Stephen, Eighteenth Century, vol. ii,\np. 413. For Owen, see his Works, vol. xix, p. 310. For Cotton Mather's\nview, see The Christian Philosopher, London, 1721, especially pp. 16 and\n17. For the case of Priestley, see Weld, History of the Royal Society,\nvol. ii, p. 56, for the facts and the admirable letter of Priestley upon\nthis rejection. For Blaer, see his L'Usage des Globes, Amsterdam, 1642.\n\n\nNor have efforts to renew the battle in the Protestant Church been\nwanting in these latter days. The attempt in the Church of England,\nin 1864, to fetter science, which was brought to ridicule by Herschel,\nBowring, and De Morgan; the assemblage of Lutheran clergy at Berlin, in\n1868, to protest against \"science falsely so called,\" are examples\nof these. Fortunately, to the latter came Pastor Knak, and his\ndenunciations of the Copernican theory as absolutely incompatible with a\nbelief in the Bible, dissolved the whole assemblage in ridicule.\n\nIn its recent dealings with modern astronomy the wisdom of the Catholic\nChurch in the more civilized countries has prevented its yielding to\nsome astounding errors into which one part of the Protestant Church has\nfallen heedlessly.\n\nThough various leaders in the older Church have committed the absurd\nerror of allowing a text-book and sundry review articles to appear which\ngrossly misstate the Galileo episode, with the certainty of ultimately\nundermining confidence in her teachings among her more thoughtful\nyoung men, she has kept clear of the folly of continuing to tie her\ninstruction, and the acceptance of our sacred books, to an adoption of\nthe Ptolemaic theory.\n\nNot so with American Lutheranism. In 1873 was published in St. Louis, at\nthe publishing house of the Lutheran Synod of Missouri, a work entitled\nAstronomische Unterredung, the author being well known as a late\npresident of a Lutheran Teachers' Seminary.\n\nNo attack on the whole modern system of astronomy could be more bitter.\nOn the first page of the introduction the author, after stating the two\ntheories, asks, \"Which is right?\" and says: \"It would be very simple to\nme which is right, if it were only a question of human import. But the\nwise and truthful God has expressed himself on this matter in the Bible.\nThe entire Holy Scripture settles the question that the earth is the\nprincipal body (Hauptkorper) of the universe, that it stands fixed, and\nthat sun and moon only serve to light it.\"\n\nThe author then goes on to show from Scripture the folly, not only of\nCopernicus and Newton, but of a long line of great astronomers in more\nrecent times. He declares: \"Let no one understand me as inquiring first\nwhere truth is to be found--in the Bible or with the astronomers. No; I\nknow that beforehand--that my God never lies, never makes a mistake; out\nof his mouth comes only truth, when he speaks of the structure of the\nuniverse, of the earth, sun, moon, and stars....\n\n\"Because the truth of the Holy Scripture is involved in this, therefore\nthe above question is of the highest importance to me.... Scientists and\nothers lean upon the miserable reed (Rohrstab) that God teaches only the\norder of salvation, but not the order of the universe.\"\n\nVery noteworthy is the fact that this late survival of an ancient belief\nbased upon text-worship is found, not in the teachings of any zealous\npriest of the mother Church, but in those of an eminent professor in\nthat branch of Protestantism which claims special enlightenment.(70)\n\n\n     (70) For the amusing details of the attempt in the English Church to\nrepress science, and of the way in which it was met, see De Morgan,\nParadoxes, p. 42. For Pastor Knak and his associates, see the Revue des\nDeux Mondes, 1868. Of the recent Lutheran works against the Copernican\nastronomy, see especially Astronomische Unterredung zwischen einem\nLiebhaber der Astronomie und mehreren beruhmten Astronomer der Neuzeit,\nby J. C. W. L., St. Louis, 1873.\n\n\nNor has the warfare against the dead champions of science been carried\non by the older Church alone.\n\nOn the 10th of May, 1859, Alexander von Humboldt was buried. His labours\nhad been among the glories of the century, and his funeral was one of\nthe most imposing that Berlin had ever seen. Among those who honoured\nthemselves by their presence was the prince regent, afterward the\nEmperor William I; but of the clergy it was observed that none\nwere present save the officiating clergyman and a few regarded as\nunorthodox.(71)\n\n\n     (71) See Bruhns and Lassell, Life of Humboldt, London, 1873, vol. ii, p.\n411.\n\n\n\n\nV. RESULTS OF THE VICTORY OVER GALILEO.\n\n\nWe return now to the sequel of the Galileo case.\n\nHaving gained their victory over Galileo, living and dead, having used\nit to scare into submission the professors of astronomy throughout\nEurope, conscientious churchmen exulted. Loud was their rejoicing that\nthe \"heresy,\" the \"infidelity\" the \"atheism\" involved in believing that\nthe earth revolves about its axis and moves around the sun had been\ncrushed by the great tribunal of the Church, acting in strict obedience\nto the expressed will of one Pope and the written order of another. As\nwe have seen, all books teaching this hated belief were put upon the\nIndex of books forbidden to Christians, and that Index was prefaced by\na bull enforcing this condemnation upon the consciences of the faithful\nthroughout the world, and signed by the reigning Pope.\n\nThe losses to the world during this complete triumph of theology\nwere even more serious than at first appears: one must especially be\nmentioned. There was then in Europe one of the greatest thinkers ever\ngiven to mankind--Rene Descartes. Mistaken though many of his reasonings\nwere, they bore a rich fruitage of truth. He had already done a vast\nwork. His theory of vortices--assuming a uniform material regulated by\nphysical laws--as the beginning of the visible universe, though it was\nbut a provisional hypothesis, had ended the whole old theory of the\nheavens with the vaulted firmament and the direction of the planetary\nmovements by angels, which even Kepler had allowed. The scientific\nwarriors had stirred new life in him, and he was working over and\nsumming up in his mighty mind all the researches of his time. The\nresult would have made an epoch in history. His aim was to combine all\nknowledge and thought into a Treatise on the World, and in view of this\nhe gave eleven years to the study of anatomy alone. But the fate of\nGalileo robbed him of all hope, of all courage; the battle seemed lost;\nhe gave up his great plan forever.(72)\n\n\n     (72) For Descartes's discouragement, see Humboldt, Cosmos, London,\n1851, vol iii, p. 21; also Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, English\ntranslation, vol. i, pp. 248, 249, where the letters of Descartes are\ngiven, showing his despair, and the relinquishment of his best thoughts\nand works in order to preserve peace with the Church; also Saisset,\nDescartes et ses Precurseurs, pp. 100 et seq.; also Jolly, Histoire du\nMouvement intellectuel au XVI Siecle, vol. i, p. 390.\n\n\nBut ere long it was seen that this triumph of the Church was in reality\na prodigious defeat. From all sides came proofs that Copernicus and\nGalileo were right; and although Pope Urban and the inquisition held\nGalileo in strict seclusion, forbidding him even to SPEAK regarding the\ndouble motion of the earth; and although this condemnation of \"all\nbooks which affirm the motion of the earth\" was kept on the Index; and\nalthough the papal bull still bound the Index and the condemnations\nin it on the consciences of the faithful; and although colleges and\nuniversities under Church control were compelled to teach the old\ndoctrine--it was seen by clear-sighted men everywhere that this victory\nof the Church was a disaster to the victors.\n\nNew champions pressed on. Campanella, full of vagaries as he was, wrote\nhis Apology for Galileo, though for that and other heresies, religious,\nand political, he seven times underwent torture.\n\nAnd Kepler comes: he leads science on to greater victories. Copernicus,\ngreat as he was, could not disentangle scientific reasoning entirely\nfrom the theological bias: the doctrines of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas\nas to the necessary superiority of the circle had vitiated the minor\nfeatures of his system, and left breaches in it through which the enemy\nwas not slow to enter; but Kepler sees these errors, and by wonderful\ngenius and vigour he gives to the world the three laws which bear his\nname, and this fortress of science is complete. He thinks and speaks\nas one inspired. His battle is severe. He is solemnly warned by the\nProtestant Consistory of Stuttgart \"not to throw Christ's kingdom into\nconfusion with his silly fancies,\" and as solemnly ordered to \"bring\nhis theory of the world into harmony with Scripture\": he is sometimes\nabused, sometimes ridiculed, sometimes imprisoned. Protestants in Styria\nand Wurtemberg, Catholics in Austria and Bohemia, press upon him but\nNewton, Halley, Bradley, and other great astronomers follow, and to\nscience remains the victory.(73)\n\n\n     (73) For Campanella, see Amabile, Fra Tommaso Campanella, Naples, 1882,\nespecially vol. iii; also Libri, vol. iv, pp. 149 et seq. Fromundus,\nspeaking of Kepler's explanation, says, \"Vix teneo ebullientem risum.\"\nThis is almost equal to the New York Church Journal, speaking of John\nStuart Mill as \"that small sciolist,\" and of the preface to Dr. Draper's\ngreat work as \"chippering.\" How a journal, generally so fair in its\ntreatment of such subjects, can condescend to such weapons is one of the\nwonders of modern journalism. For the persecution of Kepler, see Heller,\nGeschichte der Physik, vol. i, pp. 281 et seq; also Reuschle, Kepler und\ndie Astronomie, Frankfurt a. M., 1871, pp. 87 et seq. There is a poetic\njustice in the fact that these two last-named books come from Wurtemberg\nprofessors. See also The New-Englander for March, 1884, p. 178.\n\n\nYet this did not end the war. During the seventeenth century, in France,\nafter all the splendid proofs added by Kepler, no one dared openly teach\nthe Copernican theory, and Cassini, the great astronomer, never declared\nfor it. In 1672 the Jesuit Father Riccioli declared that there\nwere precisely forty-nine arguments for the Copernican theory and\nseventy-seven against it. Even after the beginning of the eighteenth\ncentury--long after the demonstrations of Sir Isaac Newton--Bossuet,\nthe great Bishop of Meaux, the foremost theologian that France has ever\nproduced, declared it contrary to Scripture.\n\nNor did matters seem to improve rapidly during that century. In England,\nJohn Hutchinson, as we have seen, published in 1724 his Moses' Principia\nmaintaining that the Hebrew Scriptures are a perfect system of natural\nphilosophy, and are opposed to the Newtonian system of gravitation; and,\nas we have also seen, he was followed by a long list of noted men in\nthe Church. In France, two eminent mathematicians published in 1748 an\nedition of Newton's Principia; but, in order to avert ecclesiastical\ncensure, they felt obliged to prefix to it a statement absolutely false.\nThree years later, Boscovich, the great mathematician of the Jesuits,\nused these words: \"As for me, full of respect for the Holy Scriptures\nand the decree of the Holy Inquisition, I regard the earth as immovable;\nnevertheless, for simplicity in explanation I will argue as if the\nearth moves; for it is proved that of the two hypotheses the appearances\nfavour this idea.\"\n\nIn Germany, especially in the Protestant part of it, the war was even\nmore bitter, and it lasted through the first half of the eighteenth\ncentury. Eminent Lutheran doctors of divinity flooded the country with\ntreatises to prove that the Copernican theory could not be reconciled\nwith Scripture. In the theological seminaries and in many of the\nuniversities where clerical influence was strong they seemed to sweep\nall before them; and yet at the middle of the century we find some\nof the clearest-headed of them aware of the fact that their cause was\nlost.(74)\n\n\n     (74) For Cassini's position, see Henri Martin, Histoire de France, vol.\nxiii, p. 175. For Riccioli, see Daunou, Etudes Historiques, vol. ii,\np. 439. For Boussuet, see Bertrand, p. 41. For Hutchinson, see Lyell,\nPrinciples of Geology, p. 48. For Wesley, see his work, already cited.\nAs to Boscovich, his declaration, mentioned in the text, was in 1746,\nbut in 1785 he seemed to feel his position in view of history, and\napologized abjectly; Bertrand, pp. 60, 61. See also Whewell's notice\nof Le Sueur and Jacquier's introduction to their edition of Newton's\nPrincipia. For the struggle in Germany, see Zoeckler, Geschichte der\nBeziehungenzwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, vol. ii, pp. 45 et\nseq.\n\n\nIn 1757 the most enlightened perhaps in the whole line of the popes,\nBenedict XIV, took up the matter, and the Congregation of the Index\nsecretly allowed the ideas of Copernicus to be tolerated. Yet in 1765\nLalande, the great French astronomer, tried in vain at Rome to induce\nthe authorities to remove Galileo's works from the Index. Even at a\ndate far within our own nineteenth century the authorities of many\nuniversities in Catholic Europe, and especially those in Spain, excluded\nthe Newtonian system. In 1771 the greatest of them all, the University\nof Salamanca, being urged to teach physical science, refused, making\nanswer as follows: \"Newton teaches nothing that would make a good\nlogician or metaphysician; and Gassendi and Descartes do not agree so\nwell with revealed truth as Aristotle does.\"\n\nVengeance upon the dead also has continued far into our own century. On\nthe 5th of May, 1829, a great multitude assembled at Warsaw to honour\nthe memory of Copernicus and to unveil Thorwaldsen's statue of him.\n\nCopernicus had lived a pious, Christian life; he had been beloved for\nunostentatious Christian charity; with his religious belief no fault had\never been found; he was a canon of the Church at Frauenberg, and over\nhis grave had been written the most touching of Christian epitaphs.\nNaturally, then, the people expected a religious service; all was\nunderstood to be arranged for it; the procession marched to the church\nand waited. The hour passed, and no priest appeared; none could be\ninduced to appear. Copernicus, gentle, charitable, pious, one of the\nnoblest gifts of God to religion as well as to science, was evidently\nstill under the ban. Five years after that, his book was still standing\non the Index of books prohibited to Christians.\n\nThe edition of the Index published in 1819 was as inexorable toward the\nworks of Copernicus and Galileo as its predecessors had been; but in the\nyear 1820 came a crisis. Canon Settele, Professor of Astronomy at Rome,\nhad written an elementary book in which the Copernican system was taken\nfor granted. The Master of the Sacred Palace, Anfossi, as censor of the\npress, refused to allow the book to be printed unless Settele revised\nhis work and treated the Copernican theory as merely a hypothesis. On\nthis Settele appealed to Pope Pius VII, and the Pope referred the matter\nto the Congregation of the Holy Office. At last, on the 16th of August,\n1820, it was decided that Settele might teach the Copernican system as\nestablished, and this decision was approved by the Pope. This aroused\nconsiderable discussion, but finally, on the 11th of September, 1822,\nthe cardinals of the Holy Inquisition graciously agreed that \"the\nprinting and publication of works treating of the motion of the earth\nand the stability of the sun, in accordance with the general opinion of\nmodern astronomers, is permitted at Rome.\" This decree was ratified by\nPius VII, but it was not until thirteen years later, in 1835, that there\nwas issued an edition of the Index from which the condemnation of works\ndefending the double motion of the earth was left out.\n\nThis was not a moment too soon, for, as if the previous proofs had not\nbeen sufficient, each of the motions of the earth was now absolutely\ndemonstrated anew, so as to be recognised by the ordinary observer.\nThe parallax of fixed stars, shown by Bessel as well as other noted\nastronomers in 1838, clinched forever the doctrine of the revolution of\nthe earth around the sun, and in 1851 the great experiment of Foucault\nwith the pendulum showed to the human eye the earth in motion around its\nown axis. To make the matter complete, this experiment was publicly made\nin one of the churches at Rome by the eminent astronomer, Father Secchi,\nof the Jesuits, in 1852--just two hundred and twenty years after the\nJesuits had done so much to secure Galileo's condemnation.(75)\n\n\n     (75) For good statements of the final action of the Church in the\nmatter, see Gebler; also Zoeckler, ii, 352. See also Bertrand,\nFondateurs de l'Astronomie moderne, p. 61; Flammarion, Vie de Copernic,\nchap. ix. As to the time when the decree of condemnation was repealed,\nthere have been various pious attempts to make it earlier than the\nreality. Artaud, p. 307, cited in an apologetic article in the Dublin\nReview, September, 1865, says that Galileo's famous dialogue was\npublished in 1714, at Padua, entire, and with the usual approbations.\nThe same article also declares that in 1818, the ecclesiastical decrees\nwere repealed by Pius VII in full Consistory. Whewell accepts this;\nbut Cantu, an authority favourable to the Church, acknowledges that\nCopernicus's work remained on the Index as late as 1835 (Cantu, Histoire\nuniverselle, vol. xv, p. 483); and with this Th. Martin, not less\nfavourable to the Church, but exceedingly careful as to the facts,\nagrees; and the most eminent authority of all, Prof. Reusch, of Bonn,\nin his Der Index der vorbotenen Bucher, Bonn, 1885, vol. ii, p. 396,\nconfirms the above statement in the text. For a clear statement of\nBradley's exquisite demonstration of the Copernican theory by reasonings\nupon the rapidity of light, etc., and Foucault's exhibition of the\nrotation of the earth by the pendulum experiment, see Hoefer, Histoire\nde l'Astronomie, pp. 492 et seq. For more recent proofs of the\nCopernican theory, by the discoveries of Bunsen, Bischoff, Benzenberg,\nand others, see Jevons, Principles of Science.\n\n\n\n\n\nVI. THE RETREAT OF THE CHURCH AFTER ITS VICTORY OVER GALILEO.\n\n\nAny history of the victory of astronomical science over dogmatic\ntheology would be incomplete without some account of the retreat made by\nthe Church from all its former positions in the Galileo case.\n\nThe retreat of the Protestant theologians was not difficult. A little\nskilful warping of Scripture, a little skilful use of that time-honoured\nphrase, attributed to Cardinal Baronius, that the Bible is given to\nteach us, not how the heavens go, but how men go to heaven, and a free\nuse of explosive rhetoric against the pursuing army of scientists,\nsufficed.\n\nBut in the older Church it was far less easy. The retreat of the\nsacro-scientific army of Church apologists lasted through two centuries.\n\nIn spite of all that has been said by these apologists, there no longer\nremains the shadow of a doubt that the papal infallibility was committed\nfully and irrevocably against the double revolution of the earth. As the\ndocuments of Galileo's trial now published show, Paul V, in 1616, pushed\non with all his might the condemnation of Galileo and of the works of\nCopernicus and of all others teaching the motion of the earth around its\nown axis and around the sun. So, too, in the condemnation of Galileo in\n1633, and in all the proceedings which led up to it and which followed\nit, Urban VIII was the central figure. Without his sanction no action\ncould have been taken.\n\nTrue, the Pope did not formally sign the decree against the Copernican\ntheory THEN; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander VII prefixed to\nthe Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and\nGalileo and \"all books which affirm the motion of the earth\" a papal\nbull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the\nconsciences of the faithful. This bull confirmed and approved in express\nterms, finally, decisively, and infallibly, the condemnation of \"all\nbooks teaching the movement of the earth and the stability of the\nsun.\"(76)\n\n\n     (76) See Rev. William W. Roberts, The Pontifical Decrees against the\nDoctrine of the Earth's Movement, London, 1885, p. 94; and for the text\nof the papal bull, Speculatores domus Israel, pp. 132, 133, see also St.\nGeorge Mivart's article in the Nineteenth Century for July, 1885. For\nthe authentic publication of the bull, see preface to the Index of 1664,\nwhere the bull appears, signed by the Pope. The Rev. Mr. Roberts and\nMr. St. George Mivart are Roman Catholics and both acknowledge that the\npapal sanction was fully given.\n\n\nThe position of the mother Church had been thus made especially\ndifficult; and the first important move in retreat by the apologists was\nthe statement that Galileo was condemned, not because he affirmed the\nmotion of the earth, but because he supported it from Scripture. There\nwas a slight appearance of truth in this. Undoubtedly, Galileo's letters\nto Castelli and the grand duchess, in which he attempted to show that\nhis astronomical doctrines were not opposed to Scripture, gave a new\nstir to religious bigotry. For a considerable time, then, this quibble\nserved its purpose; even a hundred and fifty years after Galileo's\ncondemnation it was renewed by the Protestant Mallet du Pan, in his wish\nto gain favour from the older Church.\n\nBut nothing can be more absurd, in the light of the original documents\nrecently brought out of the Vatican archives, than to make this\ncontention now. The letters of Galileo to Castelli and the Grand-Duchess\nwere not published until after the condemnation; and, although the\nArchbishop of Pisa had endeavoured to use them against him, they were\nbut casually mentioned in 1616, and entirely left out of view in 1633.\nWhat was condemned in 1616 by the Sacred Congregation held in the\npresence of Pope Paul V, as \"ABSURD, FALSE IN THEOLOGY, AND HERETICAL,\nBECAUSE ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY TO HOLY SCRIPTURE,\" was the proposition that\n\"THE SUN IS THE CENTRE ABOUT WHICH THE EARTH REVOLVES\"; and what was\ncondemned as \"ABSURD, FALSE IN PHILOSOPHY, AND FROM A THEOLOGIC POINT\nOF VIEW, AT LEAST, OPPOSED TO THE TRUE FAITH,\" was the proposition that\n\"THE EARTH IS NOT THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE AND IMMOVABLE, BUT HAS A\nDIURNAL MOTION.\"\n\nAnd again, what Galileo was made, by express order of Pope Urban, and\nby the action of the Inquisition under threat of torture, to abjure in\n1633, was \"THE ERROR AND HERESY OF THE MOVEMENT OF THE EARTH.\"\n\nWhat the Index condemned under sanction of the bull issued by Alexander\nVII in 1664 was, \"ALL BOOKS TEACHING THE MOVEMENT OF THE EARTH AND THE\nSTABILITY OF THE SUN.\"\n\nWhat the Index, prefaced by papal bulls, infallibly binding its contents\nupon the consciences of the faithful, for nearly two hundred years\nsteadily condemned was, \"ALL BOOKS WHICH AFFIRM THE MOTION OF THE\nEARTH.\"\n\nNot one of these condemnations was directed against Galileo \"for\nreconciling his ideas with Scripture.\"(77)\n\n\n     (77) For the original trial documents, copied carefully from the Vatican\nmanuscripts, see the Roman Catholic authority, L'Epinois, especially\np. 35, where the principal document is given in its original Latin;\nsee also Gebler, Die Acten des galilei'schen Processes, for still more\ncomplete copies of the same documents. For minute information regarding\nthese documents and their publication, see Favaro, Miscellanea Galileana\nInedita, forming vol. xxii, part iii, of the Memoirs of the Venetian\nInstitute for 1887, and especially pp. 891 and following.\n\n\nHaving been dislodged from this point, the Church apologists sought\ncover under the statement that Galileo was condemned not for heresy, but\nfor contumacy and want of respect toward the Pope.\n\nThere was a slight chance, also, for this quibble: no doubt Urban VIII,\none of the haughtiest of pontiffs, was induced by Galileo's enemies\nto think that he had been treated with some lack of proper etiquette:\nfirst, by Galileo's adhesion to his own doctrines after his condemnation\nin 1616; and, next, by his supposed reference in the Dialogue of 1632 to\nthe arguments which the Pope had used against him.\n\nBut it would seem to be a very poor service rendered to the doctrine\nof papal infallibility to claim that a decision so immense in its\nconsequences could be influenced by the personal resentment of the\nreigning pontiff.\n\nAgain, as to the first point, the very language of the various sentences\nshows the folly of this assertion; for these sentences speak always of\n\"heresy\" and never of \"contumacy.\" As to the last point, the display\nof the original documents settled that forever. They show Galileo from\nfirst to last as most submissive toward the Pope, and patient under the\npapal arguments and exactions. He had, indeed, expressed his anger at\ntimes against his traducers; but to hold this the cause of the judgment\nagainst him is to degrade the whole proceedings, and to convict Paul V,\nUrban VIII, Bellarmin, the other theologians, and the Inquisition, of\ndirect falsehood, since they assigned entirely different reasons\nfor their conduct. From this position, therefore, the assailants\nretreated.(78)\n\n\n     (78) The invention of the \"contumacy\" quibble seems due to Monsignor\nMarini, who appears also to have manipulated the original documents to\nprove it. Even Whewell was evidently somewhat misled by him, but Whewell\nwrote before L'Epinois had shown all the documents, and under the\nsupposition that Marini was an honest man.\n\n\nThe next rally was made about the statement that the persecution of\nGalileo was the result of a quarrel between Aristotelian professors on\none side and professors favouring the experimental method on the other.\nBut this position was attacked and carried by a very simple statement.\nIf the divine guidance of the Church is such that it can be dragged\ninto a professorial squabble, and made the tool of a faction in bringing\nabout a most disastrous condemnation of a proved truth, how did the\nChurch at that time differ from any human organization sunk into\ndecrepitude, managed nominally by simpletons, but really by schemers? If\nthat argument be true, the condition of the Church was even worse than\nits enemies have declared it; and amid the jeers of an unfeeling world\nthe apologists sought new shelter.\n\nThe next point at which a stand was made was the assertion that\nthe condemnation of Galileo was \"provisory\"; but this proved a more\ntreacherous shelter than the others. The wording of the decree of\ncondemnation itself is a sufficient answer to this claim. When doctrines\nhave been solemnly declared, as those of Galileo were solemnly declared\nunder sanction of the highest authority in the Church, \"contrary to the\nsacred Scriptures,\" \"opposed to the true faith,\" and \"false and\nabsurd in theology and philosophy\"--to say that such declarations\nare \"provisory\" is to say that the truth held by the Church is not\nimmutable; from this, then, the apologists retreated.(79)\n\n\n     (79) This argument also seems to have been foisted upon the world by the\nwily Monsignor Marini.\n\n\nStill another contention was made, in some respects more curious\nthan any other: it was, mainly, that Galileo \"was no more a victim\nof Catholics than of Protestants; for they more than the Catholic\ntheologians impelled the Pope to the action taken.\"(80)\n\n\n     (80) See the Rev. A. M. Kirsch on Professor Huxley and Evolution, in The\nAmerican Catholic Quarterly, October, 1877. The article is, as a whole,\nremarkably fair-minded, and in the main, just, as to the Protestant\nattitude, and as to the causes underlying the whole action against\nGalileo.\n\n\nBut if Protestantism could force the papal hand in a matter of this\nmagnitude, involving vast questions of belief and far-reaching questions\nof policy, what becomes of \"inerrancy\"--of special protection and\nguidance of the papal authority in matters of faith?\n\nWhile this retreat from position to position was going on, there was a\nconstant discharge of small-arms, in the shape of innuendoes, hints,\nand sophistries: every effort was made to blacken Galileo's private\ncharacter: the irregularities of his early life were dragged forth, and\nstress was even laid upon breaches of etiquette; but this succeeded so\npoorly that even as far back as 1850 it was thought necessary to cover\nthe retreat by some more careful strategy.\n\nThis new strategy is instructive. The original documents of the Galileo\ntrial had been brought during the Napoleonic conquests to Paris; but in\n1846 they were returned to Rome by the French Government, on the express\npledge by the papal authorities that they should be published. In 1850,\nafter many delays on various pretexts, the long-expected publication\nappeared. The personage charged with presenting them to the world was\nMonsignor Marini. This ecclesiastic was of a kind which has too often\nafflicted both the Church and the world at large. Despite the solemn\npromise of the papal court, the wily Marini became the instrument of\nthe Roman authorities in evading the promise. By suppressing a document\nhere, and interpolating a statement there, he managed to give plausible\nstanding-ground for nearly every important sophistry ever broached\nto save the infallibility of the Church and destroy the reputation of\nGalileo. He it was who supported the idea that Galileo was \"condemned\nnot for heresy, but for contumacy.\"\n\nThe first effect of Monsignor Marini's book seemed useful in covering\nthe retreat of the Church apologists. Aided by him, such vigorous\nwriters as Ward were able to throw up temporary intrenchments between\nthe Roman authorities and the indignation of the world.\n\nBut some time later came an investigator very different from Monsignor\nMarini. This was a Frenchman, M. L'Epinois. Like Marini, L'Epinois was\ndevoted to the Church; but, unlike Marini, he could not lie. Having\nobtained access in 1867 to the Galileo documents at the Vatican,\nhe published several of the most important, without suppression or\npious-fraudulent manipulation. This made all the intrenchments based\nupon Marini's statements untenable. Another retreat had to be made.\n\nAnd now came the most desperate effort of all. The apologetic army,\nreviving an idea which the popes and the Church had spurned for\ncenturies, declared that the popes AS POPES had never condemned the\ndoctrines of Copernicus and Galileo; that they had condemned them as men\nsimply; that therefore the Church had never been committed to them; that\nthe condemnation was made by the cardinals of the inquisition and index;\nand that the Pope had evidently been restrained by interposition of\nProvidence from signing their condemnation. Nothing could show the\ndesperation of the retreating party better than jugglery like this. The\nfact is, that in the official account of the condemnation by Bellarmin,\nin 1616, he declares distinctly that he makes this condemnation \"in the\nname of His Holiness the Pope.\"(81)\n\n\n     (81) See the citation from the Vatican manuscript given in Gebler, p.\n78.\n\n\nAgain, from Pope Urban downward, among the Church authorities of the\nseventeenth century the decision was always acknowledged to be made by\nthe Pope and the Church. Urban VIII spoke of that of 1616 as made by\nPope Paul V and the Church, and of that of 1633 as made by himself\nand the Church. Pope Alexander VII in 1664, in his bull Speculatores,\nsolemnly sanctioned the condemnation of all books affirming the earth's\nmovement.(82)\n\n\n     (82) For references by Urban VIII to the condemnation as made by Pope\nPaul V see pp. 136, 144, and elsewhere in Martin, who much against\nhis will is forced to allow this. See also Roberts, Pontifical decrees\nagainst the Earth's Movement, and St. George Mivart's article, as above\nquoted; also Reusch, Index der verbotenen Bucher, Bonn, 1885, vol. ii,\npp. 29 et seq.\n\n\nWhen Gassendi attempted to raise the point that the decision against\nCopernicus and Galileo was not sanctioned by the Church as such, an\neminent theological authority, Father Lecazre, rector of the College of\nDijon, publicly contradicted him, and declared that it \"was not certain\ncardinals, but the supreme authority of the Church,\" that had condemned\nGalileo; and to this statement the Pope and other Church authorities\ngave consent either openly or by silence. When Descartes and others\nattempted to raise the same point, they were treated with contempt.\nFather Castelli, who had devoted himself to Galileo, and knew to his\ncost just what the condemnation meant and who made it, takes it for\ngranted, in his letter to the papal authorities, that it was made by the\nChurch. Cardinal Querenghi, in his letters; the ambassador Guicciardini,\nin his dispatches; Polacco, in his refutation; the historian Viviani,\nin his biography of Galileo--all writing under Church inspection\nand approval at the time, took the view that the Pope and the Church\ncondemned Galileo, and this was never denied at Rome. The Inquisition\nitself, backed by the greatest theologian of the time (Bellarmin), took\nthe same view. Not only does he declare that he makes the condemnation\n\"in the name of His Holiness the Pope,\" but we have the Roman Index,\ncontaining the condemnation for nearly two hundred years, prefaced by\na solemn bull of the reigning Pope binding this condemnation on the\nconsciences of the whole Church, and declaring year after year that \"all\nbooks which affirm the motion of the earth\" are damnable. To attempt\nto face all this, added to the fact that Galileo was required to abjure\n\"the heresy of the movement of the earth\" by written order of the Pope,\nwas soon seen to be impossible. Against the assertion that the Pope\nwas not responsible we have all this mass of testimony, and the bull of\nAlexander VII in 1664.(83)\n\n\n     (83) For Lecazre's answer to Gassendi, see Martin, pp. 146, 147. For the\nattempt to make the crimes of Galileo breach of etiquette, see Dublin\nReview, as above. Whewell, vol. i, p. 283. Citation from Marini:\n\"Galileo was punished for trifling with the authorities, to which\nhe refused to submit, and was punished for obstinate contumacy, not\nheresy.\" The sufficient answer to all this is that the words of the\ninflexible sentence designating the condemned books are \"libri omnes\nqui affirmant telluris motum.\" See Bertrand, p. 59. As to the idea\nthat \"Galileo was punished for not his opinion, but for basing it on\nScripture,\" the answer may be found in the Roman Index of 1704, in which\nare noted for condemnation \"Libri omnes docentes mobilitatem terrae et\nimmobilitatem solis.\" For the way in which, when it was found convenient\nin argument, Church apologists insisted that it WAS \"the Supreme Chief\nof the Church by a pontifical decree, and not certain cardinals,\" who\ncondemned Galileo and his doctrine, see Father Lecazre's letter to\nGassendi, in Flammarion, Pluralite des Mondes, p. 427, and Urban\nVIII's own declarations as given by Martin. For the way in which,\nwhen necessary, Church apologists asserted the very contrary of this,\ndeclaring that it was \"issued in a doctrinal degree of the Congregation\nof the Index, and NOT as the Holy Father's teaching,\" see Dublin Review,\nSeptember, 1865.\n\n\nThis contention, then, was at last utterly given up by honest Catholics\nthemselves. In 1870 a Roman Catholic clergy man in England, the Rev. Mr.\nRoberts, evidently thinking that the time had come to tell the truth,\npublished a book entitled The Pontifical Decrees against the Earth's\nMovement, and in this exhibited the incontrovertible evidences that\nthe papacy had committed itself and its infallibility fully against the\nmovement of the earth. This Catholic clergyman showed from the original\nrecord that Pope Paul V, in 1616, had presided over the tribunal\ncondemning the doctrine of the earth's movement, and ordering Galileo\nto give up the opinion. He showed that Pope Urban VIII, in 1633, pressed\non, directed, and promulgated the final condemnation, making himself\nin all these ways responsible for it. And, finally, he showed that Pope\nAlexander VII, in 1664, by his bull--Speculatores domus Israel--attached\nto the Index, condemning \"all books which affirm the motion of the\nearth,\" had absolutely pledged the papal infallibility against the\nearth's movement. He also confessed that under the rules laid down by\nthe highest authorities in the Church, and especially by Sixtus V and\nPius IX, there was no escape from this conclusion.\n\nVarious theologians attempted to evade the force of the argument. Some,\nlike Dr. Ward and Bouix, took refuge in verbal niceties; some, like Dr.\nJeremiah Murphy, comforted themselves with declamation. The only result\nwas, that in 1885 came another edition of the Rev. Mr. Roberts's work,\neven more cogent than the first; and, besides this, an essay by\nthat eminent Catholic, St. George Mivart, acknowledging the Rev. Mr.\nRoberts's position to be impregnable, and declaring virtually that the\nAlmighty allowed Pope and Church to fall into complete error regarding\nthe Copernican theory, in order to teach them that science lies outside\ntheir province, and that the true priesthood of scientific truth rests\nwith scientific investigators alone.(84)\n\n\n     (84) For the crushing answer by two eminent Roman Catholics to the\nsophistries cited--an answer which does infinitely more credit to the\nolder Church that all the perverted ingenuity used in concealing the\ntruth or breaking the force of it--see Roberts and St. George Mivart, as\nalready cited.\n\n\nIn spite, then, of all casuistry and special pleading, this sturdy\nhonesty ended the controversy among Catholics themselves, so far as\nfair-minded men are concerned.\n\nIn recalling it at this day there stand out from its later phases\ntwo efforts at compromise especially instructive, as showing the\nembarrassment of militant theology in the nineteenth century.\n\nThe first of these was made by John Henry Newman in the days when he was\nhovering between the Anglican and Roman Churches. In one of his sermons\nbefore the University of Oxford he spoke as follows:\n\n\"Scripture says that the sun moves and the earth is stationary, and\nscience that the earth moves and the sun is comparatively at rest. How\ncan we determine which of these opposite statements is the very truth\ntill we know what motion is? If our idea of motion is but an accidental\nresult of our present senses, neither proposition is true and both are\ntrue: neither true philosophically; both true for certain practical\npurposes in the system in which they are respectively found.\"\n\nIn all anti-theological literature there is no utterance more hopelessly\nskeptical. And for what were the youth of Oxford led into such\nbottomless depths of disbelief as to any real existence of truth or\nany real foundation for it? Simply to save an outworn system of\ninterpretation into which the gifted preacher happened to be born.\n\nThe other utterance was suggested by De Bonald and developed in the\nDublin Review, as is understood, by one of Newman's associates. This\nargument was nothing less than an attempt to retreat under the charge\nof deception against the Almighty himself. It is as follows: \"But it may\nwell be doubted whether the Church did retard the progress of scientific\ntruth. What retarded it was the circumstance that God has thought fit to\nexpress many texts of Scripture in words which have every appearance of\ndenying the earth's motion. But it is God who did this, not the Church;\nand, moreover, since he saw fit so to act as to retard the progress of\nscientific truth, it would be little to her discredit, even if it were\ntrue, that she had followed his example.\"\n\nThis argument, like Mr. Gosse's famous attempt to reconcile geology to\nGenesis--by supposing that for some inscrutable purpose God deliberately\ndeceived the thinking world by giving to the earth all the appearances\nof development through long periods of time, while really creating it in\nsix days, each of an evening and a morning--seems only to have awakened\nthe amazed pity of thinking men. This, like the argument of Newman, was\na last desperate effort of Anglican and Roman divines to save something\nfrom the wreckage of dogmatic theology.(85)\n\n\n     (85) For the quotation from Newman, see his Sermons on the Theory of\nReligious Belief, sermon xiv, cited by Bishop Goodwin in Contemporary\nReview for January, 1892. For the attempt to take the blame off the\nshoulders of both Pope and cardinals and place it upon the Almighty, see\nthe article above cited, in the Dublin Review, September 1865, p.\n419 and July, 1871, pp. 157 et seq. For a good summary of the various\nattempts, and for replies to them in a spirit of judicial fairness, see\nTh. Martin, Vie de Galilee, though there is some special pleading to\nsave the infallibility of the Pope and Church. The bibliography at the\nclose is very valuable. For details of Mr. Gosse's theory, as developed\nin his Omphalos, see the chapter on Geology in this work. As to a still\nlater attempt, see Wegg-Prosser, Galileo and his Judges, London, 1889,\nthe main thing in it being an attempt to establish, against the honest\nand honourable concessions of Catholics like Roberts and Mivart,\nsundry far-fetched and wire-drawn distinctions between dogmatic and\ndisciplinary bulls--an attempt which will only deepen the distrust of\nstraightforward reasoners. The author's point of view is stated in\nthe words, \"I have maintained that the Church has a right to lay her\nrestraining hand on the speculations of natural science\" (p. 167).\n\n\nAll these well-meaning defenders of the faith but wrought into the\nhearts of great numbers of thinking men the idea that there is a\nnecessary antagonism between science and religion. Like the landsman who\nlashes himself to the anchor of the sinking ship, they simply attached\nChristianity by the strongest cords of logic which they could spin to\nthese mistaken ideas in science, and, could they have had their way, the\nadvance of knowledge would have ingulfed both together.\n\nOn the other hand, what had science done for religion? Simply this:\nCopernicus, escaping persecution only by death; Giordano Bruno, burned\nalive as a monster of impiety; Galileo, imprisoned and humiliated as\nthe worst of misbelievers; Kepler, accused of \"throwing Christ's kingdom\ninto confusion with his silly fancies\"; Newton, bitterly attacked for\n\"dethroning Providence,\" gave to religion stronger foundations and more\nennobling conceptions.\n\nUnder the old system, that princely astronomer, Alphonso of Castile,\nseeing the inadequacy of the Ptolemaic theory, yet knowing no other,\nstartled Europe with the blasphemy that, if he had been present at\ncreation, he could have suggested a better order of the heavenly bodies.\nUnder the new system, Kepler, filled with a religious spirit, exclaimed,\n\"I do think the thoughts of God.\" The difference in religious spirit\nbetween these two men marks the conquest made in this long struggle by\nScience for Religion.(86)\n\n\n     (86) As a pendant to this ejaculation of Kepler may be cited the words\nof Linnaeus: \"Deum ominpotentem a tergo transeuntem vidi et obstupui.\"\n\n\nNothing is more unjust than to cast especial blame for all this\nresistance to science upon the Roman Church. The Protestant Church,\nthough rarely able to be so severe, has been more blameworthy. The\npersecution of Galileo and his compeers by the older Church was\nmainly at the beginning of the seventeenth century; the persecution\nof Robertson Smith, and Winchell, and Woodrow, and Toy, and the young\nprofessors at Beyrout, by various Protestant authorities, was near the\nend of the nineteenth century. Those earlier persecutions by Catholicism\nwere strictly in accordance with principles held at that time by all\nreligionists, Catholic and Protestant, throughout the world; these later\npersecutions by Protestants were in defiance of principles which all\nProtestants to-day hold or pretend to hold, and none make louder\nclaim to hold them than the very sects which persecuted these eminent\nChristian men of our day, men whose crime was that they were intelligent\nenough to accept the science of their time, and honest enough to\nacknowledge it.\n\nMost unjustly, then, would Protestantism taunt Catholicism for excluding\nknowledge of astronomical truths from European Catholic universities\nin the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, while real knowledge\nof geological and biological and anthropological truth is denied\nor pitifully diluted in so many American Protestant colleges and\nuniversities in the nineteenth century.\n\nNor has Protestantism the right to point with scorn to the Catholic\nIndex, and to lay stress on the fact that nearly every really important\nbook in the last three centuries has been forbidden by it, so long as\nyoung men in so many American Protestant universities and colleges are\nnursed with \"ecclesiastical pap\" rather than with real thought, and\ndirected to the works of \"solemnly constituted impostors,\" or to sundry\n\"approved courses of reading,\" while they are studiously kept aloof from\nsuch leaders in modern thought as Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, Draper, and\nLecky.\n\nIt may indeed be justly claimed by Protestantism that some of the former\nstrongholds of her bigotry have become liberalized; but, on the other\nhand, Catholicism can point to the fact that Pope Leo XIII, now\nhappily reigning, has made a noble change as regards open dealing with\ndocuments. The days of Monsignor Marini, it may be hoped, are gone. The\nVatican Library, with its masses of historical material, has been thrown\nopen to Protestant and Catholic scholars alike, and this privilege has\nbeen freely used by men representing all shades of religious thought.\n\nAs to the older errors, the whole civilized world was at fault,\nProtestant as well as Catholic. It was not the fault of religion; it\nwas the fault of that short-sighted linking of theological dogmas to\nscriptural texts which, in utter defiance of the words and works of the\nBlessed Founder of Christianity, narrow-minded, loud-voiced men are ever\nprone to substitute for religion. Justly is it said by one of the most\neminent among contemporary Anglican divines, that \"it is because they\nhave mistaken the dawn for a conflagration that theologians have so\noften been foes of light.\"(87)\n\n\n     (87) For an exceedingly striking statement, by a Roman Catholic\nhistorian of genius, as to the POPULAR demand for persecution and the\npressure of the lower strata in ecclesiastical organizations for cruel\nmeasures, see Balmes's Le Protestantisme compare au Catholicisme, etc.,\nfourth edition, Paris, 1855, vol. ii. Archbishop Spaulding has something\nof the same sort in his Miscellanies. L'Epinois, Galilee, p. 22 et seq.,\nstretches this as far as possible to save the reputation of the Church\nin the Galileo matter. As to the various branches of the Protestant\nChurch in England and the United States, it is a matter of notoriety\nthat the smug, well-to-do laymen, whether elders, deacons, or vestrymen,\nare, as a rule, far more prone to heresy-hunting than are their better\neducated pastors. As to the cases of Messrs. Winchell, Woodrow, Toy,\nand all the professors at Beyrout, with details, see the chapter in this\nseries on The Fall of Man and Anthropology. Among Protestant historians\nwho have recently been allowed full and free examination of the\ntreasures in the Vatican Library, and even those involving questions\nbetween Catholicism and Protestantism, are von Sybel, of Berlin, and\nPhilip Schaff, of New York. It should be added that the latter went with\ncommendatory letters from eminent prelates in the Catholic Church in\nAmerica and Europe. For the closing citation, see Canon Farrar, History\nof Interpretation, p. 432.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.  FROM \"SIGNS AND WONDERS\" TO LAW IN THE HEAVENS.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW.\n\n\nFew things in the evolution of astronomy are more suggestive than the\nstruggle between the theological and the scientific doctrine regarding\ncomets--the passage from the conception of them as fire-balls flung by\nan angry God for the purpose of scaring a wicked world, to a recognition\nof them as natural in origin and obedient to law in movement. Hardly\nanything throws a more vivid light upon the danger of wresting texts\nof Scripture to preserve ideas which observation and thought have\nsuperseded, and upon the folly of arraying ecclesiastical power against\nscientific discovery.(88)\n\n\n     (88) The present study, after its appearance in the Popular Science\nMonthly as a \"new chapter in the Warfare of Science,\" was revised\nand enlarged to nearly its present form, and read before the American\nHistorical Association, among whose papers it was published, in 1887,\nunder the title of A History of the Doctrine of Comets.\n\n\nOut of the ancient world had come a mass of beliefs regarding comets,\nmeteors, and eclipses; all these were held to be signs displayed from\nheaven for the warning of mankind. Stars and meteors were generally\nthought to presage happy events, especially the births of gods, heroes,\nand great men. So firmly rooted was this idea that we constantly find\namong the ancient nations traditions of lights in the heavens preceding\nthe birth of persons of note. The sacred books of India show that\nthe births of Crishna and of Buddha were announced by such heavenly\nlights.(89) The sacred books of China tell of similar appearances at\nthe births of Yu, the founder of the first dynasty, and of the inspired\nsage, Lao-tse. According to the Jewish legends, a star appeared at the\nbirth of Moses, and was seen by the Magi of Egypt, who informed the\nking; and when Abraham was born an unusual star appeared in the east.\nThe Greeks and Romans cherished similar traditions. A heavenly light\naccompanied the birth of Aesculapius, and the births of various Caesars\nwere heralded in like manner.(90)\n\n\n     (89) For Crishna, see Cox, Aryan Mythology, vol. ii, p. 133; the Vishnu\nPurana (Wilson's translation), book v, chap. iv. As to lights at\nthe birth, or rather at the conception, of Buddha, see Bunsen, Angel\nMessiah, pp. 22,23; Alabaster, Wheel of the Law (illustrations of\nBuddhism), p. 102; Edwin Arnold, Light of Asia; Bp. Bigandet, Life\nof Gaudama, the Burmese Buddha, p. 30; Oldenberg, Buddha (English\ntranslation), part i, chap. ii.\n\n\n     (90) For Chinese legends regarding stars at the birth of Yu and\nLao-tse, see Thornton, History of China, vol. i, p. 137; also Pingre,\nCometographie, p. 245. Regarding stars at the birth of Moses and\nAbraham, see Calmet, Fragments, part viii; Baring-Gould, Legends of Old\nTestament Characters, chap. xxiv; Farrar, Life of Christ, chap. iii. As\nto the Magi, see Higgins, Anacalypsis; Hooykaas, Ort, and Kuenen,\nBible for Learners, vol. iii. For Greek and Roman traditions, see Bell,\nPantheon, s. v. Aesculapius and Atreus; Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol.\ni, pp. 151, 590; Farrar, Life of Christ (American edition), p. 52; Cox,\nTales of Ancient Greece, pp. 41, 61, 62; Higgins, Anacalypsis, vol. i,\np. 322; also Suetonius, Caes., Julius, p.88, Claud., p. 463; Seneca,\nNat. Quaest, vol. 1, p. 1; Virgil, Ecl., vol. ix, p. 47; as well as\nOvid, Pliny, and others.\n\n\nThe same conception entered into our Christian sacred books. Of all the\nlegends which grew in such luxuriance and beauty about the cradle of\nJesus of Nazareth, none appeals more directly to the highest poetic\nfeeling than that given by one of the evangelists, in which a star,\nrising in the east, conducted the wise men to the manger where the\nGalilean peasant-child--the Hope of Mankind, the Light of the World--was\nlying in poverty and helplessness.\n\nAmong the Mohammedans we have a curious example of the same tendency\ntoward a kindly interpretation of stars and meteors, in the belief of\ncertain Mohammedan teachers that meteoric showers are caused by good\nangels hurling missiles to drive evil angels out of the sky.\n\nEclipses were regarded in a very different light, being supposed\nto express the distress of Nature at earthly calamities. The Greeks\nbelieved that darkness overshadowed the earth at the deaths of\nPrometheus, Atreus, Hercules, Aesculapius, and Alexander the Great. The\nRoman legends held that at the death of Romulus there was darkness for\nsix hours. In the history of the Caesars occur portents of all three\nkinds; for at the death of Julius the earth was shrouded in darkness,\nthe birth of Augustus was heralded by a star, and the downfall of Nero\nby a comet. So, too, in one of the Christian legends clustering about\nthe crucifixion, darkness overspread the earth from the sixth to the\nninth hour. Neither the silence regarding it of the only evangelist who\nclaims to have been present, nor the fact that observers like Seneca\nand Pliny, who, though they carefully described much less striking\noccurrences of the same sort and in more remote regions, failed to\nnote any such darkness even in Judea, have availed to shake faith in an\naccount so true to the highest poetic instincts of humanity.\n\nThis view of the relations between Nature and man continued among both\nJews and Christians. According to Jewish tradition, darkness overspread\nthe earth for three days when the books of the Law were profaned by\ntranslation into Greek. Tertullian thought an eclipse an evidence of\nGod's wrath against unbelievers. Nor has this mode of thinking ceased\nin modern times. A similar claim was made at the execution of Charles I;\nand Increase Mather thought an eclipse in Massachusetts an evidence\nof the grief of Nature at the death of President Chauncey, of Harvard\nCollege. Archbishop Sandys expected eclipses to be the final tokens of\nwoe at the destruction of the world, and traces of this feeling have\ncome down to our own time.\n\nThe quaint story of the Connecticut statesman who, when his associates\nin the General Assembly were alarmed by an eclipse of the sun, and\nthought it the beginning of the Day of Judgment, quietly ordered in\ncandles, that he might in any case be found doing his duty, marks\nprobably the last noteworthy appearance of the old belief in any\ncivilized nation.(91)\n\n\n     (91) For Hindu theories, see Alabaster, Wheel of the Law, 11. For Greek\nand Roman legends, See Higgins, Anacalypsis, vol. i, pp. 616, 617.; also\nSuetonius, Caes., Julius, p. 88, Claud., p. 46; Seneca, Quaest. Nat.,\nvol. i, p. 1, vol. vii, p. 17; Pliny, Hist. Nat., vol. ii, p. 25;\nTacitus, Ann., vol. xiv, p. 22; Josephus, Antiq., vol. xiv, p. 12; and\nthe authorities above cited. For the tradition of the Jews regarding\nthe darkness of three days, see citation in Renan, Histoire du Peuple\nIsrael, vol. iv, chap. iv. For Tertullian's belief regarding the\nsignificance of an eclipse, see the Ad Scapulum, chap. iii, in Migne,\nPatrolog. Lat., vol. i, p. 701. For the claim regarding Charles I, see\na sermon preached before Charles II, cited by Lecky, England in the\nEighteenth Century, vol. i, p. 65. Mather thought, too, that it might\nhave something to do with the death of sundry civil functionaries of\nthe colonies; see his Discourse concerning comets, 1682. For Archbishop\nSandy's belief, see his eighteenth sermon (in Parker Soc. Publications).\nThe story of Abraham Davenport has been made familiar by the poem of\nWhittier.\n\n\nIn these beliefs regarding meteors and eclipses there was little\ncalculated to do harm by arousing that superstitious terror which is\nthe worst breeding-bed of cruelty. Far otherwise was it with the belief\nregarding comets. During many centuries it gave rise to the direst\nsuperstition and fanaticism. The Chaldeans alone among the ancient\npeoples generally regarded comets without fear, and thought them bodies\nwandering as harmless as fishes in the sea; the Pythagoreans alone among\nphilosophers seem to have had a vague idea of them as bodies returning\nat fixed periods of time; and in all antiquity, so far as is known, one\nman alone, Seneca, had the scientific instinct and prophetic inspiration\nto give this idea definite shape, and to declare that the time would\ncome when comets would be found to move in accordance with natural law.\nHere and there a few strong men rose above the prevailing superstition.\nThe Emperor Vespasian tried to laugh it down, and insisted that a\ncertain comet in his time could not betoken his death, because it was\nhairy, and he bald; but such scoffing produced little permanent effect,\nand the prophecy of Seneca was soon forgotten. These and similar\nisolated utterances could not stand against the mass of opinion which\nupheld the doctrine that comets are \"signs and wonders.\"(92)\n\n\n     (92) For terror caused in Rome by comets, see Pingre, Cometographie, pp.\n165, 166. For the Chaldeans, see Wolf, Geschichte der Astronomie, p. 10\net seq., and p. 181 et seq.; also Pingre, chap. ii. For the Pythagorean\nnotions, see citations from Plutarch in Costard, History of Astronomy,\np. 283. For Seneca's prediction, see Guillemin, World of Comets\n(translated by Glaisher), pp. 4, 5; also Watson, On Comets, p. 126. For\nthis feeling in antiquity generally, see the preliminary chapters of the\ntwo works last cited.\n\n\nThe belief that every comet is a ball of fire flung from the right hand\nof an angry God to warn the grovelling dwellers of earth was received\ninto the early Church, transmitted through the Middle Ages to the\nReformation period, and in its transmission was made all the more\nprecious by supposed textual proofs from Scripture. The great fathers of\nthe Church committed themselves unreservedly to it. In the third century\nOrigen, perhaps the most influential of the earlier fathers of the\nuniversal Church in all questions between science and faith, insisted\nthat comets indicate catastrophes and the downfall of empires and\nworlds. Bede, so justly revered by the English Church, declared in the\neighth century that \"comets portend revolutions of kingdoms, pestilence,\nwar, winds, or heat\"; and John of Damascus, his eminent contemporary\nin the Eastern Church, took the same view. Rabanus Maurus, the great\nteacher of Europe in the ninth century, an authority throughout the\nMiddle Ages, adopted Bede's opinion fully. St. Thomas Aquinas, the great\nlight of the universal Church in the thirteenth century, whose works the\nPope now reigning commends as the centre and source of all university\ninstruction, accepted and handed down the same opinion. The sainted\nAlbert the Great, the most noted genius of the medieval Church in\nnatural science, received and developed this theory. These men and\nthose who followed them founded upon scriptural texts and theological\nreasonings a system that for seventeen centuries defied every advance of\nthought.(93)\n\n\n     (93) For Origen, se his De Princip., vol. i, p. 7; also Maury, Leg.\npieuses, p. 203, note. For Bede and others, see De Nat., vol. xxiv; Joh.\nDam., De Fid. Or.,vol. ii, p. 7; Maury, La Magie et l'Astronomie, pp.\n181, 182. For Albertus Magnus, see his Opera, vol. i, tr. iii, chaps.\nx, xi. Among the texts of Scripture on which this belief rested was\nespecially Joel ii, 30, 31.\n\n\nThe main evils thence arising were three: the paralysis of self-help,\nthe arousing of fanaticism, and the strengthening of ecclesiastical\nand political tyranny. The first two of these evils--the paralysis of\nself-help and the arousing of fanaticism--are evident throughout\nall these ages. At the appearance of a comet we constantly see all\nChristendom, from pope to peasant, instead of striving to avert war\nby wise statesmanship, instead of striving to avert pestilence by\nobservation and reason, instead of striving to avert famine by skilful\neconomy, whining before fetiches, trying to bribe them to remove these\nsigns of God's wrath, and planning to wreak this supposed wrath of God\nupon misbelievers.\n\nAs to the third of these evils--the strengthening of ecclesiastical\nand civil despotism--examples appear on every side. It was natural that\nhierarchs and monarchs whose births were announced by stars, or whose\ndeaths were announced by comets, should regard themselves as far above\nthe common herd, and should be so regarded by mankind; passive obedience\nwas thus strengthened, and the most monstrous assumptions of authority\nwere considered simply as manifestations of the Divine will. Shakespeare\nmakes Calphurnia say to Caesar:\n\n\n\"When beggars die, there are no comets seen; The heavens themselves\nblaze forth the death of princes.\"\n\n\nGaleazzo, the tyrant of Milan, expressing satisfaction on his deathbed\nthat his approaching end was of such importance as to be heralded by a\ncomet, is but a type of many thus encouraged to prey upon mankind;\nand Charles V, one of the most powerful monarchs the world has known,\nabdicating under fear of the comet of 1556, taking refuge in the\nmonastery of San Yuste, and giving up the best of his vast realms to\nsuch a scribbling bigot as Philip II, furnishes an example even more\nstriking.(94)\n\n\n\n     (94) For Caesar, see Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, act ii, sc. 2. For\nGaleazzo, see Guillemin, World of Comets, p. 19. For Charles V, see\nProf. Wolf's essay in the Monatschrift des wissenschaftlichen Vereins,\nZurich, 1857, p. 228.\n\n\nBut for the retention of this belief there was a moral cause. Myriads\nof good men in the Christian Church down to a recent period saw in the\nappearance of comets not merely an exhibition of \"signs in the heavens\"\nforetold in Scripture, but also Divine warnings of vast value to\nhumanity as incentives to repentance and improvement of life-warnings,\nindeed, so precious that they could not be spared without danger to\nthe moral government of the world. And this belief in the portentous\ncharacter of comets as an essential part of the Divine government,\nbeing, as it was thought, in full accord with Scripture, was made for\ncenturies a source of terror to humanity. To say nothing of examples in\nthe earlier periods, comets in the tenth century especially increased\nthe distress of all Europe. In the middle of the eleventh century a\ncomet was thought to accompany the death of Edward the Confessor and to\npresage the Norman conquest; the traveller in France to-day may see this\nbelief as it was then wrought into the Bayeux tapestry.(95)\n\n\n     (95) For evidences of this widespread terror, see chronicles of\nRaoul Glaber, Guillaume de Nangis, William of Malmesbury, Florence\nof Worcester, Ordericus Vitalis, et al., passim, and the Anglo-Saxon\nChronicle (in the Rolls Series). For very thrilling pictures of this\nhorror in England, see Freeman, Norman Conquest, vol. iii, pp. 640-644,\nand William Rufus, vol. ii, p. 118. For the Bayeau tapestry, see Bruce,\nBayeux Tapestry Elucidated, plate vii and p. 86; also Guillemin, World\nof Comets, p. 24. There is a large photographic copy, in the South\nKensington Museum at London, of the original, wrought, as is generally\nbelieved, by the wife of William the Conqueror and her ladies, and is\nstill preserved in the town museum at Bayeux.\n\n\nNearly every decade of years throughout the Middle Ages saw Europe\nplunged into alarm by appearances of this sort, but the culmination\nseems to have been reached in 1456. At that time the Turks, after a long\neffort, had made good their footing in Europe. A large statesmanship\nor generalship might have kept them out; but, while different religious\nfactions were disputing over petty shades of dogma, they had advanced,\nhad taken Constantinople, and were evidently securing their foothold.\nNow came the full bloom of this superstition. A comet appeared. The\nPope of that period, Calixtus III, though a man of more than ordinary\nability, was saturated with the ideas of his time. Alarmed at this\nmonster, if we are to believe the contemporary historian, this\ninfallible head of the Church solemnly \"decreed several days of prayer\nfor the averting of the wrath of God, that whatever calamity impended\nmight be turned from the Christians and against the Turks.\" And, that\nall might join daily in this petition, there was then established that\nmidday Angelus which has ever since called good Catholics to prayer\nagainst the powers of evil. Then, too, was incorporated into a litany\nthe plea, \"From the Turk and the comet, good Lord, deliver us.\"\nNever was papal intercession less effective; for the Turk has held\nConstantinople from that day to this, while the obstinate comet, being\nthat now known under the name of Halley, has returned imperturbably at\nshort periods ever since.(96)\n\n\n     (96) The usual statement is, that Calixtus excommunicated the comet by\na bull, and this is accepted by Arago, Grant, Hoefer, Guillemin, Watson,\nand many historians of astronomy. Hence the parallel is made on a noted\noccasion by President Lincoln. No such bull, however, is to be found in\nthe published Bulleria, and that establishing the Angelus (as given by\nRaynaldus in the Annales Eccl.) contains no mention of the comet. But\nthe authority of Platina (in his Vitae Pontificum, Venice, 1479, sub\nCalistus III) who was not only in Rome at the time, but when he wrote\nhis history, archivist of the Vatican, is final as to the Pope's\nattitude. Platina's authority was never questioned until modern science\nchanged the ideas of the world. The recent attempt of Pastor (in his\nGeschichte der Papste) to pooh-pooh down the whole matter is too evident\nan evasion to carry weight with those who know how even the most careful\nhistories have to be modified to suit the views of the censorship at\nRome.\n\n\nBut the superstition went still further. It became more and more\nincorporated into what was considered \"scriptural science\" and \"sound\nlearning.\" The encyclopedic summaries, in which the science of the\nMiddle Ages and the Reformation period took form, furnish abundant\nproofs of this.\n\nYet scientific observation was slowly undermining this structure. The\ninspired prophecy of Seneca had not been forgotten. Even as far back as\nthe ninth century, in the midst of the sacred learning so abundant\nat the court of Charlemagne and his successors, we find a scholar\nprotesting against the accepted doctrine. In the thirteenth century we\nhave a mild question by Albert the Great as to the supposed influence of\ncomets upon individuals; but the prevailing theological current was too\nstrong, and he finally yielded to it in this as in so many other things.\n\nSo, too, in the sixteenth century, we have Copernicus refusing to accept\nthe usual theory, Paracelsus writing to Zwingli against it, and Julius\nCaesar Scaliger denouncing it as \"ridiculous folly.\"(97)\n\n\n     (97) As to encyclopedic summaries, see Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum\nNaturale, and the various editions of Reisch's Margarita Philosophica.\nFor Charlemagne's time, see Champion, La Fin du Monde, p. 156; Leopardi,\nErrori Popolari, p. 165. As to Albert the Great's question, see Heller,\nGeschichte der Physik, vol. i, p. 188. As to scepticism in the sixteenth\ncentury, see Champion, La Fin du Monde, pp. 155, 156; and for Scaliger,\nDudith's book, cited below.\n\n\nAt first this scepticism only aroused the horror of theologians and\nincreased the vigour of ecclesiastics; both asserted the theological\ntheory of comets all the more strenuously as based on scriptural truth.\nDuring the sixteenth century France felt the influence of one of her\ngreatest men on the side of this superstition. Jean Bodin, so far before\nhis time in political theories, was only thoroughly abreast of it in\nreligious theories: the same reverence for the mere letter of Scripture\nwhich made him so fatally powerful in supporting the witchcraft\ndelusion, led him to support this theological theory of comets--but\nwith a difference: he thought them the souls of men, wandering in space,\nbringing famine, pestilence, and war.\n\nNot less strong was the same superstition in England. Based upon\nmediaeval theology, it outlived the revival of learning. From a\nmultitude of examples a few may be selected as typical. Early in the\nsixteenth century Polydore Virgil, an ecclesiastic of the unreformed\nChurch, alludes, in his English History, to the presage of the death of\nthe Emperor Constantine by a comet as to a simple matter of fact; and\nin his work on prodigies he pushes this superstition to its most extreme\npoint, exhibiting comets as preceding almost every form of calamity.\n\nIn 1532, just at the transition period from the old Church to the new,\nCranmer, paving the way to his archbishopric, writes from Germany to\nHenry VIII, and says of the comet then visible: \"What strange things\nthese tokens do signify to come hereafter, God knoweth; for they do not\nlightly appear but against some great matter.\"\n\nTwenty years later Bishop Latimer, in an Advent sermon, speaks of\neclipses, rings about the sun, and the like, as signs of the approaching\nend of the world.(98)\n\n\n     (98) For Bodin, see Theatr., lib. ii, cited by Pingre, vol. i, p. 45;\nalso a vague citation in Baudrillart, Bodin et son Temps, p. 360.\nFor Polydore Virgil, see English History, p. 97 (in Camden Society\nPublications). For Cranmer, see Remains, vol. ii, p. 535 (in Parker\nSociety Publications). For Latimer, see Sermons, second Sunday in\nAdvent, 1552.\n\n\nIn 1580, under Queen Elizabeth, there was set forth an \"order of\nprayer to avert God's wrath from us, threatened by the late terrible\nearthquake, to be used in all parish churches.\" In connection with this\nthere was also commended to the faithful \"a godly admonition for the\ntime present\"; and among the things referred to as evidence of God's\nwrath are comets, eclipses, and falls of snow.\n\nThis view held sway in the Church of England during Elizabeth's whole\nreign and far into the Stuart period: Strype, the ecclesiastical\nannalist, gives ample evidence of this, and among the more curious\nexamples is the surmise that the comet of 1572 was a token of Divine\nwrath provoked by the St. Bartholomew massacre.\n\nAs to the Stuart period, Archbishop Spottiswoode seems to have been\nactive in carrying the superstition from the sixteenth century to the\nseventeenth, and Archbishop Bramhall cites Scripture in support of\nit. Rather curiously, while the diary of Archbishop Laud shows so much\nsuperstition regarding dreams as portents, it shows little or none\nregarding comets; but Bishop Jeremy Taylor, strong as he was, evidently\nfavoured the usual view. John Howe, the eminent Nonconformist divine\nin the latter part of the century, seems to have regarded the comet\nsuperstition as almost a fundamental article of belief; he laments the\ntotal neglect of comets and portents generally, declaring that this\nneglect betokens want of reverence for the Ruler of the world; he\nexpresses contempt for scientific inquiry regarding comets, insists that\nthey may be natural bodies and yet supernatural portents, and ends by\nsaying, \"I conceive it very safe to suppose that some very considerable\nthing, either in the way of judgment or mercy, may ensue, according as\nthe cry of persevering wickedness or of penitential prayer is more or\nless loud at that time.\"(99)\n\n\n     (99) For Liturgical Services of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, see Parker\nSociety Publications, pp. 569, 570. For Strype, see his Ecclesiastical\nMemorials, vol. iii, part i, p. 472; also see his Annals of the\nreformation, vol. ii, part ii, p. 151; and his Life of Sir Thomas Smith,\npp. 161, 162. For Spottiswoode, see History of the Church of Scotland\n(Edinburgh reprint, 1851), vol. i, pp. 185, 186. For Bramhall, see his\nWorks, Oxford, 1844, vol. iv, pp. 60, 307, etc. For Jeremy Taylor, see\nhis Sermons on the Life of Christ. For John Howe, see his Works, London,\n1862, vol. iv, pp. 140, 141.\n\n\nThe Reformed Church of Scotland supported the superstition just as\nstrongly. John Knox saw in comets tokens of the wrath of Heaven; other\nauthorities considered them \"a warning to the king to extirpate the\nPapists\"; and as late as 1680, after Halley had won his victory, comets\nwere announced on high authority in the Scottish Church to be \"prodigies\nof great judgment on these lands for our sins, for never was the Lord\nmore provoked by a people.\"\n\nWhile such was the view of the clergy during the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries, the laity generally accepted it as a matter of\ncourse, Among the great leaders in literature there was at least general\nacquiescence in it. Both Shakespeare and Milton recognise it, whether\nthey fully accept it or not. Shakespeare makes the Duke of Bedford,\nlamenting at the bier of Henry V, say:\n\n\n\"Comets, importing change of time and states, Brandish your crystal\ntresses in the sky; And with them scourge the bad revolting stars, That\nhave consented unto Henry's death.\"\n\n\nMilton, speaking of Satan preparing for combat, says:\n\n\n\"On the other side, Incensed with indignation, Satan stood. Unterrified,\nand like a comet burned, That fires the length of Ophiuchus huge In the\narctic sky, and from its horrid hair Shakes pestilence and war.\"\n\n\nWe do indeed find that in some minds the discoveries of Tycho Brahe\nand Kepler begin to take effect, for, in 1621, Burton in his Anatomy of\nMelancholy alludes to them as changing public opinion somewhat regarding\ncomets; and, just before the middle of the century, Sir Thomas Browne\nexpresses a doubt whether comets produce such terrible effects, \"since\nit is found that many of them are above the moon.\"(100) Yet even as late\nas the last years of the seventeenth century we have English authors\nof much power battling for this supposed scriptural view and among the\nnatural and typical results we find, in 1682, Ralph Thoresby, a Fellow\nof the Royal Society, terrified at the comet of that year, and writing\nin his diary the following passage: \"Lord, fit us for whatever changes\nit may portend; for, though I am not ignorant that such meteors proceed\nfrom natural causes, yet are they frequently also the presages of\nimminent calamities.\" Interesting is it to note here that this was\nHalley's comet, and that Halley was at this very moment making those\nscientific studies upon it which were to free the civilized world\nforever from such terrors as distressed Thoresby.\n\n\n     (100) For John Knox, see his Histoire of the Reformation of Religion\nwithin the Realm of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1732), lib. iv; also Chambers,\nDomestic Annals of Scotland, vol. ii, pp 410-412. For Burton, see his\nAnatomy of Melancholy, part ii, sect 2. For Browne, see the Vulgar and\nCommon Errors, book vi, chap. xiv.\n\n\nThe belief in comets as warnings against sin was especially one of those\nheld \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" and by Eastern Christians as well\nas by Western. One of the most striking scenes in the history of the\nEastern Church is that which took place at the condemnation of Nikon,\nthe great Patriarch of Moscow. Turning toward his judges, he pointed to\na comet then blazing in the sky, and said, \"God's besom shall sweep you\nall away!\"\n\nOf all countries in western Europe, it was in Germany and German\nSwitzerland that this superstition took strongest hold. That same depth\nof religious feeling which produced in those countries the most terrible\ngrowth of witchcraft persecution, brought superstition to its highest\ndevelopment regarding comets. No country suffered more from it in the\nMiddle Ages. At the Reformation Luther declared strongly in favour of\nit. In one of his Advent sermons he said, \"The heathen write that the\ncomet may arise from natural causes, but God creates not one that does\nnot foretoken a sure calamity.\" Again he said, \"Whatever moves in the\nheaven in an unusual way is certainly a sign of God's wrath.\"\n\nAnd sometimes, yielding to another phase of his belief, he declared them\nworks of the devil, and declaimed against them as \"harlot stars.\"(101)\n\n\n     (101) For Thoresby, see his Diary, (London, 1830). Halley's great\nservice is described further on in this chapter. For Nikon's speech, see\nDean Stanley's History of the Eastern Church, p. 485. For very striking\nexamples of this mediaeval terror in Germany, see Von Raumer, Geschichte\nder Hohenstaufen, vol. vi, p. 538. For the Reformation period, see Wolf,\nGesch. d. Astronomie; also Praetorius, Ueber d. Cometstern (Erfurt,\n1589), in which the above sentences of Luther are printed on the title\npage as epigraphs. For \"Huren-Sternen,\" see the sermon of Celichius,\ndescribed later.\n\n\nMelanchthon, too, in various letters refers to comets as heralds of\nHeaven's wrath, classing them, with evil conjunctions of the planets and\nabortive births, among the \"signs\" referred to in Scripture. Zwingli,\nboldest of the greater Reformers in shaking off traditional beliefs,\ncould not shake off this, and insisted that the comet of 1531 betokened\ncalamity. Arietus, a leading Protestant theologian, declared, \"The\nheavens are given us not merely for our pleasure, but also as a warning\nof the wrath of God for the correction of our lives.\" Lavater insisted\nthat comets are signs of death or calamity, and cited proofs from\nScripture.\n\nCatholic and Protestant strove together for the glory of this doctrine.\nIt was maintained with especial vigour by Fromundus, the eminent\nprofessor and Doctor of Theology at the Catholic University of Louvain,\nwho so strongly opposed the Copernican system; at the beginning of the\nseventeenth century, even so gifted an astronomer as Kepler yielded\nsomewhat to the belief; and near the end of that century Voigt declared\nthat the comet of 1618 clearly presaged the downfall of the Turkish\nEmpire, and he stigmatized as \"atheists and Epicureans\" all who did not\nbelieve comets to be God's warnings.(102)\n\n\n     (102) For Melanchthon, see Wolf, ubi supra. For Zwingli, see Wolf, p.\n235. For Arietus, see Madler, Geschichte der Himmelskunde, vol. ii. For\nKepler's superstition, see Wolf, p. 281. For Voight, see Himmels-Manaten\nReichstage, Hamburg, 1676. For both Fromundus and Voigt, see also\nMadler, vol. ii, p. 399, and Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, vol. i, p.28.\n\n\nII. THEOLOGICAL EFFORTS TO CRUSH THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW.\n\n\nOut of this belief was developed a great series of efforts to maintain\nthe theological view of comets, and to put down forever the scientific\nview. These efforts may be divided into two classes: those directed\ntoward learned men and scholars, through the universities, and those\ndirected toward the people at large, through the pulpits. As to the\nfirst of these, that learned men and scholars might be kept in the paths\nof \"sacred science\" and \"sound learning,\" especial pains was taken to\nkeep all knowledge of the scientific view of comets as far as possible\nfrom students in the universities. Even to the end of the seventeenth\ncentury the oath generally required of professors of astronomy over a\nlarge part of Europe prevented their teaching that comets are heavenly\nbodies obedient to law. Efforts just as earnest were made to fasten into\nstudents' minds the theological theory. Two or three examples out of\nmany may serve as types. First of these may be named the teaching of\nJacob Heerbrand, professor at the University of Tubingen, who in 1577\nillustrated the moral value of comets by comparing the Almighty sending\na comet, to the judge laying the executioner's sword on the table\nbetween himself and the criminal in a court of justice; and, again, to\nthe father or schoolmaster displaying the rod before naughty children.\nA little later we have another churchman of great importance in that\nregion, Schickhart, head pastor and superintendent at Goppingen,\npreaching and publishing a comet sermon, in which he denounces those who\nstare at such warnings of God without heeding them, and compares them\nto \"calves gaping at a new barn door.\" Still later, at the end of the\nseventeenth century, we find Conrad Dieterich, director of studies at\nthe University of Marburg, denouncing all scientific investigation of\ncomets as impious, and insisting that they are only to be regarded as\n\"signs and wonders.\"(103)\n\n\n     (103) For the effect of the anti-Pythagorean oath, see Prowe,\nCopernicus; also Madler and Wolf. For Heerbrand, see his Von dem\nerschrockenlichen Wunderzeichen, Tubingen, 1577. For Schickart, see\nhis Predigt vom Wunderzeichen, Stuttgart, 1621. For Deiterich, see his\nsermon, described more fully below.\n\n\nThe results of this ecclesiastical pressure upon science in the\nuniversities were painfully shown during generation after generation, as\nregards both professors and students; and examples may be given typical\nof its effects upon each of these two classes.\n\nThe first of these is the case of Michael Maestlin. He was by birth a\nSwabian Protestant, was educated at Tubingen as a pupil of Apian, and,\nafter a period of travel, was settled as deacon in the little parish\nof Backnang, when the comet of 1577 gave him an occasion to apply his\nastronomical studies. His minute and accurate observation of it is to\nthis day one of the wonders of science. It seems almost impossible that\nso much could be accomplished by the naked eye. His observations agreed\nwith those of Tycho Brahe, and won for Maestlin the professorship of\nastronomy in the University of Heidelberg. No man had so clearly proved\nthe supralunar position of a comet, or shown so conclusively that\nits motion was not erratic, but regular. The young astronomer, though\nApian's pupil, was an avowed Copernican and the destined master and\nfriend of Kepler. Yet, in the treatise embodying his observations, he\nfelt it necessary to save his reputation for orthodoxy by calling\nthe comet a \"new and horrible prodigy,\" and by giving a chapter of\n\"conjectures on the signification of the present comet,\" in which he\nproves from history that this variety of comet betokens peace, but\npeace purchased by a bloody victory. That he really believed in this\ntheological theory seems impossible; the very fact that his observations\nhad settled the supralunar character and regular motion of comets proves\nthis. It was a humiliation only to be compared to that of Osiander\nwhen he wrote his grovelling preface to the great book of Copernicus.\nMaestlin had his reward: when, a few years, later his old teacher,\nApian, was driven from his chair at Tubingen for refusing to sign the\nLutheran Concord-Book, Maestlin was elected to his place.\n\nNot less striking was the effect of this theological pressure upon the\nminds of students. Noteworthy as an example of this is the book of the\nLeipsic lawyer, Buttner. From no less than eighty-six biblical texts\nhe proves the Almighty's purpose of using the heavenly bodies for the\ninstruction of men as to future events, and then proceeds to frame\nexhaustive tables, from which, the time and place of the comet's first\nappearance being known, its signification can be deduced. This manual\nhe gave forth as a triumph of religious science, under the name of the\nComet Hour-Book.(104)\n\n\n     (104) For Maestlin, see his Observatio et Demonstration Cometae,\nTubingen, 1578. For Buttner, see his Cometen Stundbuchlein, Leipsic,\n1605.\n\n\nThe same devotion to the portent theory is found in the universities\nof Protestant Holland. Striking is it to see in the sixteenth century,\nafter Tycho Brahe's discovery, the Dutch theologian, Gerard Vossius,\nProfessor of Theology and Eloquence at Leyden, lending his great weight\nto the superstition. \"The history of all times,\" he says, \"shows comets\nto be the messengers of misfortune. It does not follow that they are\nendowed with intelligence, but that there is a deity who makes use of\nthem to call the human race to repentance.\" Though familiar with the\nworks of Tycho Brahe, he finds it \"hard to believe\" that all comets are\nethereal, and adduces several historical examples of sublunary ones.\n\nNor was this attempt to hold back university teaching to the old view of\ncomets confined to Protestants. The Roman Church was, if possible,\nmore strenuous in the same effort. A few examples will serve as types,\nrepresenting the orthodox teaching at the great centres of Catholic\ntheology.\n\nOne of these is seen in Spain. The eminent jurist Torreblanca was\nrecognised as a controlling authority in all the universities of Spain,\nand from these he swayed in the seventeenth century the thought of\nCatholic Europe, especially as to witchcraft and the occult powers\nin Nature. He lays down the old cometary superstition as one of the\nfoundations of orthodox teaching: Begging the question, after the\nfashion of his time, he argues that comets can not be stars, because new\nstars always betoken good, while comets betoken evil.\n\nThe same teaching was given in the Catholic universities of the\nNetherlands. Fromundus, at Louvain, the enemy of Galileo, steadily\ncontinued his crusade against all cometary heresy.(105)\n\n\n     (105) For Vossius, see the De Idololatria (in his Opera, vol. v, pp.\n283-285). For Torreblanc, see his De Magia, Seville, 1618, and often\nreprinted. For Fromundus, see his Meteorologica.\n\n\nBut a still more striking case is seen in Italy. The reverend Father\nAugustin de Angelis, rector of the Clementine College at Rome, as late\nas 1673, after the new cometary theory had been placed beyond reasonable\ndoubt, and even while Newton was working out its final demonstration,\npublished a third edition of his Lectures on Meteorology. It was\ndedicated to the Cardinal of Hesse, and bore the express sanction of\nthe Master of the Sacred Palace at Rome and of the head of the religious\norder to which De Angelis belonged. This work deserves careful analysis,\nnot only as representing the highest and most approved university\nteaching of the time at the centre of Roman Catholic Christendom, but\nstill more because it represents that attempt to make a compromise\nbetween theology and science, or rather the attempt to confiscate\nscience to the uses of theology, which we so constantly find whenever\nthe triumph of science in any field has become inevitable.\n\nAs to the scientific element in this compromise, De Angelis holds, in\nhis general introduction regarding meteorology, that the main material\ncause of comets is \"exhalation,\" and says, \"If this exhalation is thick\nand sticky, it blazes into a comet.\" And again he returns to the\nsame view, saying that \"one form of exhalation is dense, hence easily\ninflammable and long retentive of fire, from which sort are especially\ngenerated comets.\" But it is in his third lecture that he takes up\ncomets specially, and his discussion of them is extended through the\nfourth, fifth, and sixth lectures. Having given in detail the opinions\nof various theologians and philosophers, he declares his own in the form\nof two conclusions. The first of these is that \"comets are not heavenly\nbodies, but originate in the earth's atmosphere below the moon; for\neverything heavenly is eternal and incorruptible, but comets have a\nbeginning and ending--ergo, comets can not be heavenly bodies.\" This,\nwe may observe, is levelled at the observations and reasonings of Tycho\nBrahe and Kepler, and is a very good illustration of the scholastic\nand mediaeval method--the method which blots out an ascertained fact by\nmeans of a metaphysical formula. His second conclusion is that \"comets\nare of elemental and sublunary nature; for they are an exhalation\nhot and dry, fatty and well condensed, inflammable and kindled in\nthe uppermost regions of the air.\" He then goes on to answer sundry\nobjections to this mixture of metaphysics and science, and among other\nthings declares that \"the fatty, sticky material of a comet may be\nkindled from sparks falling from fiery heavenly bodies or from a\nthunderbolt\"; and, again, that the thick, fatty, sticky quality of the\ncomet holds its tail in shape, and that, so far are comets from having\ntheir paths beyond the moon's orbit, as Tycho Brahe and Kepler thought,\nhe himself in 1618 saw \"a bearded comet so near the summit of Vesuvius\nthat it almost seemed to touch it.\" As to sorts and qualities of\ncomets, he accepts Aristotle's view, and divides them into bearded and\ntailed.(106) He goes on into long disquisitions upon their colours,\nforms, and motions. Under this latter head he again plunges deep into\na sea of metaphysical considerations, and does not reappear until he\nbrings up his compromise in the opinion that their movement is as yet\nuncertain and not understood, but that, if we must account definitely\nfor it, we must say that it is effected by angels especially assigned to\nthis service by Divine Providence. But, while proposing this compromise\nbetween science and theology as to the origin and movement of comets,\nhe will hear to none as regards their mission as \"signs and wonders\" and\npresages of evil. He draws up a careful table of these evils, arranging\nthem in the following order: Drought, wind, earthquake, tempest, famine,\npestilence, war, and, to clinch the matter, declares that the comet\nobserved by him in 1618 brought not only war, famine, pestilence, and\nearthquake, but also a general volcanic eruption, \"which would have\ndestroyed Naples, had not the blood of the invincible martyr Januarius\nwithstood it.\"\n\n\n     (106) Barbata et caudata.\n\n\nIt will be observed, even from this sketch, that, while the learned\nFather Augustin thus comes infallibly to the mediaeval conclusion, he\ndoes so very largely by scientific and essentially modern processes,\ngiving unwonted prominence to observation, and at times twisting\nscientific observation into the strand with his metaphysics. The\nobservations and methods of his science are sometimes shrewd, sometimes\ncomical. Good examples of the latter sort are such as his observing that\nthe comet stood very near the summit of Vesuvius, and his reasoning\nthat its tail was kept in place by its stickiness. But observations and\nreasonings of this sort are always the first homage paid by theology to\nscience as the end of their struggle approaches.(107)\n\n\n     (107) See De Angelis, Lectiones Meteorologicae, Rome, 1669.\n\n\nEqually striking is an example seen a little later in another part of\nEurope; and it is the more noteworthy because Halley and Newton had\nalready fully established the modern scientific theory. Just at the\nclose of the seventeenth century the Jesuit Reinzer, professor at Linz,\nput forth his Meteorologia Philosophico-Politica, in which all natural\nphenomena received both a physical and a moral interpretation. It was\nprofusely and elaborately illustrated, and on account of its instructive\ncontents was in 1712 translated into German for the unlearned reader.\nThe comet receives, of course, great attention. \"It appears,\" says\nReinzer, \"only then in the heavens when the latter punish the earth, and\nthrough it (the comet) not only predict but bring to pass all sorts of\ncalamity.... And, to that end, its tail serves for a rod, its hair for\nweapons and arrows, its light for a threat, and its heat for a sign of\nanger and vengeance.\" Its warnings are threefold: (1) \"Comets, generated\nin the air, betoken NATURALLY drought, wind, earthquake, famine, and\npestilence.\" (2) \"Comets can indirectly, in view of their material,\nbetoken wars, tumults, and the death of princes; for, being hot and\ndry, they bring the moistnesses (Feuchtigkeiten) in the human body to\nan extraordinary heat and dryness, increasing the gall; and, since the\nemotions depend on the temperament and condition of the body, men are\nthrough this change driven to violent deeds, quarrels, disputes, and\nfinally to arms: especially is this the result with princes, who\nare more delicate and also more arrogant than other men, and whose\nmoistnesses are more liable to inflammation of this sort, inasmuch as\nthey live in luxury and seldom restrain themselves from those things\nwhich in such a dry state of the heavens are especially injurious.\" (3)\n\"All comets, whatever prophetic significance they may have naturally\nin and of themselves, are yet principally, according to the Divine\npleasure, heralds of the death of great princes, of war, and of other\nsuch great calamities; and this is known and proved, first of all, from\nthe words of Christ himself: 'Nation shall rise against nation, and\nkingdom against kingdom; and great earthquakes shall be in divers\nplaces, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and great signs\nshall there be from heaven.'\"(108)\n\n\n     (108) See Reinzer, Meteorologica Philosophico-Politica (edition of\nAugsburg, 1712), pp. 101-103.\n\n\nWhile such pains was taken to keep the more highly educated classes\nin the \"paths of scriptural science and sound learning;\" at the\nuniversities, equal efforts were made to preserve the cometary orthodoxy\nof the people at large by means of the pulpits. Out of the mass of\nsermons for this purpose which were widely circulated I will select just\ntwo as typical, and they are worthy of careful study as showing some\nspecial dangers of applying theological methods to scientific facts.\nIn the second half of the sixteenth century the recognised capital of\northodox Lutheranism was Magdeburg, and in the region tributary to this\nmetropolis no Church official held a more prominent station than the\n\"Superintendent,\" or Lutheran bishop, of the neighbouring Altmark. It\nwas this dignitary, Andreas Celichius by name, who at Magdeburg, in\n1578, gave to the press his Theological Reminder of the New Comet.\nAfter deprecating as blasphemous the attempt of Aristotle to explain the\nphenomenon otherwise than as a supernatural warning from God to sinful\nman, he assures his hearers that \"whoever would know the comet's real\nsource and nature must not merely gape and stare at the scientific\ntheory that it is an earthy, greasy, tough, and sticky vapour and mist,\nrising into the upper air and set ablaze by the celestial heat.\" Far\nmore important for them is it to know what this vapour is. It is really,\nin the opinion of Celichius, nothing more or less than \"the thick smoke\nof human sins, rising every day, every hour, every moment, full of\nstench and horror, before the face of God, and becoming gradually so\nthick as to form a comet, with curled and plaited tresses, which at last\nis kindled by the hot and fiery anger of the Supreme Heavenly Judge.\"\nHe adds that it is probably only through the prayers and tears of\nChrist that this blazing monument of human depravity becomes visible to\nmortals. In support of this theory, he urges the \"coming up before God\"\nof the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah and of Nineveh, and especially\nthe words of the prophet regarding Babylon, \"Her stench and rottenness\nis come up before me.\" That the anger of God can produce the\nconflagration without any intervention of Nature is proved from the\nPsalms, \"He sendeth out his word and melteth them.\" From the position\nof the comet, its course, and the direction of its tail he augurs\nespecially the near approach of the judgment day, though it may also\nbetoken, as usual, famine, pestilence, and war. \"Yet even in these\ndays,\" he mourns, \"there are people reckless and giddy enough to pay\nno heed to such celestial warnings, and these even cite in their own\ndefence the injunction of Jeremiah not to fear signs in the heavens.\"\nThis idea he explodes, and shows that good and orthodox Christians,\nwhile not superstitious like the heathen, know well \"that God is not\nbound to his creation and the ordinary course of Nature, but must often,\nespecially in these last dregs of the world, resort to irregular means\nto display his anger at human guilt.\"(109)\n\n\n     (109) For Celichius, or Celich, see his own treatise, as above.\n\n\nThe other typical case occurred in the following century and in another\npart of Germany. Conrad Dieterich was, during the first half of the\nseventeenth century, a Lutheran ecclesiastic of the highest authority.\nHis ability as a theologian had made him Archdeacon of Marburg,\nProfessor of Philosophy and Director of Studies at the University of\nGiessen, and \"Superintendent,\" or Lutheran bishop, in southwestern\nGermany. In the year 1620, on the second Sunday in Advent, in the great\nCathedral of Ulm, he developed the orthodox doctrine of comets in a\nsermon, taking up the questions: 1. What are comets? 2. What do they\nindicate? 3. What have we to do with their significance? This sermon\nmarks an epoch. Delivered in that stronghold of German Protestantism\nand by a prelate of the highest standing, it was immediately printed,\nprefaced by three laudatory poems from different men of note, and sent\nforth to drive back the scientific, or, as it was called, the \"godless,\"\nview of comets. The preface shows that Dieterich was sincerely alarmed\nby the tendency to regard comets as natural appearances. His text was\ntaken from the twenty-fifth verse of the twenty-first chapter of St.\nLuke: \"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the\nstars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea\nand the waves roaring.\" As to what comets are, he cites a multitude of\nphilosophers, and, finding that they differ among themselves, he uses a\nform of argument not uncommon from that day to this, declaring that this\ndifference of opinion proves that there is no solution of the problem\nsave in revelation, and insisting that comets are \"signs especially sent\nby the Almighty to warn the earth.\" An additional proof of this he\nfinds in the forms of comets. One, he says, took the form of a trumpet;\nanother, of a spear; another of a goat; another, of a torch; another, of\na sword; another, of an arrow; another, of a sabre; still another, of a\nbare arm. From these forms of comets he infers that we may divine their\npurpose. As to their creation, he quotes John of Damascus and other\nearly Church authorities in behalf of the idea that each comet is a\nstar newly created at the Divine command, out of nothing, and that it\nindicates the wrath of God. As to their purpose, having quoted largely\nfrom the Bible and from Luther, he winds up by insisting that, as God\ncan make nothing in vain, comets must have some distinct object; then,\nfrom Isaiah and Joel among the prophets, from Matthew, Mark, and\nLuke among the evangelists, from Origen and John Chrysostom among the\nfathers, from Luther and Melanchthon among the Reformers, he draws\nvarious texts more or less conclusive to prove that comets indicate evil\nand only evil; and he cites Luther's Advent sermon to the effect that,\nthough comets may arise in the course of Nature, they are still signs\nof evil to mankind. In answer to the theory of sundry naturalists that\ncomets are made up of \"a certain fiery, warm, sulphurous, saltpetery,\nsticky fog,\" he declaims: \"Our sins, our sins: they are the fiery heated\nvapours, the thick, sticky, sulphurous clouds which rise from the\nearth toward heaven before God.\" Throughout the sermon Dieterich pours\ncontempt over all men who simply investigate comets as natural objects,\ncalls special attention to a comet then in the heavens resembling a long\nbroom or bundle of rods, and declares that he and his hearers can only\nconsider it rightly \"when we see standing before us our Lord God in\nheaven as an angry father with a rod for his children.\" In answer to the\nquestion what comets signify, he commits himself entirely to the idea\nthat they indicate the wrath of God, and therefore calamities of every\nsort. Page after page is filled with the records of evils following\ncomets. Beginning with the creation of the world, he insists that\nthe first comet brought on the deluge of Noah, and cites a mass of\nauthorities, ranging from Moses and Isaiah to Albert the Great and\nMelanchthon, in support of the view that comets precede earthquakes,\nfamines, wars, pestilences, and every form of evil. He makes some parade\nof astronomical knowledge as to the greatness of the sun and moon, but\nrelapses soon into his old line of argument. Imploring his audience not\nto be led away from the well-established belief of Christendom and the\nprinciples of their fathers, he comes back to his old assertion, insists\nthat \"our sins are the inflammable material of which comets are made,\"\nand winds up with a most earnest appeal to the Almighty to spare his\npeople.(110)\n\n\n     (110) For Deiterich, see Ulmische Cometen-Predigt, von dem Cometen, so\nnechst abgewischen 1618 Jahrs im Wintermonat erstenmahls in Schwaben\nsehen lassen,... gehalten zu Ulm... durch Conrad Dieterich, Ulm, 1620.\nFor a life of the author, see article Dieterich in the Allgemeine\nDeutsche Biographie. See also Wolf.\n\n\nSimilar efforts from the pulpit were provoked by the great comet of\n1680. Typical among these was the effort in Switzerland of Pastor\nHeinrich Erni, who, from the Cathedral of Zurich, sent a circular letter\nto the clergy of that region showing the connection of the eleventh and\ntwelfth verses of the first chapter of Jeremiah with the comet, giving\nnotice that at his suggestion the authorities had proclaimed a solemn\nfast, and exhorting the clergy to preach earnestly on the subject of\nthis warning.\n\nNor were the interpreters of the comet's message content with simple\nprose. At the appearance of the comet of 1618, Grasser and Gross,\npastors and doctors of theology at Basle, put forth a collection\nof doggerel rhymes to fasten the orthodox theory into the minds of\nschool-children and peasants. One of these may be translated:\n\n\"I am a Rod in God's right hand  threatening the German and foreign land.\"\n\n\nOthers for a similar purpose taught:\n\n\n\"Eight things there be a Comet brings, When it on high doth horrid\nrange: Wind, Famine, Plague, and Death to Kings, War, Earthquakes,\nFloods, and Direful Change.\"\n\n\nGreat ingenuity was shown in meeting the advance of science, in the\nuniversities and schools, with new texts of Scripture; and Stephen\nSpleiss, Rector of the Gymnasium at Schaffhausen, got great credit by\nteaching that in the vision of Jeremiah the \"almond rod\" was a tailed\ncomet, and the \"seething pot\" a bearded one.(111)\n\n\n     (111) For Erni, see Wolf, Gesch. d. Astronomie, p. 239. For Grassner and\nGross, see their Christenliches Bedenken... von dem erschrockenlichen\nCometen, etc., Zurich, 1664. For Spleiss, see Beilauftiger Bericht von\ndem jetzigen Cometsternen, etc., schaffhausen, 1664.\n\n\nIt can be easily understood that such authoritative utterances as that\nof Dieterich must have produced a great effect throughout Protestant\nChristendom; and in due time we see their working in New England. That\nsame tendency to provincialism, which, save at rare intervals, has been\nthe bane of Massachusetts thought from that day to this, appeared; and\nin 1664 we find Samuel Danforth arguing from the Bible that \"comets\nare portentous signals of great and notable changes,\" and arguing from\nhistory that they \"have been many times heralds of wrath to a secure and\nimpenitent world.\" He cites especially the comet of 1652, which appeared\njust before Mr. Cotton's sickness and disappeared after his death.\nMorton also, in his Memorial recording the death of John Putnam, alludes\nto the comet of 1662 as \"a very signal testimony that God had then\nremoved a bright star and a shining light out of the heaven of his\nChurch here into celestial glory above.\" Again he speaks of another\ncomet, insisting that \"it was no fiery meteor caused by exhalation, but\nit was sent immediately by God to awaken the secure world,\" and goes\non to show how in that year \"it pleased God to smite the fruits of the\nearth--namely, the wheat in special--with blasting and mildew, whereby\nmuch of it was spoiled and became profitable for nothing, and much of\nit worth little, being light and empty. This was looked upon by the\njudicious and conscientious of the land as a speaking providence against\nthe unthankfulness of many,... as also against voluptuousness and abuse\nof the good creatures of God by licentiousness in drinking and fashions\nin apparel, for the obtaining whereof a great part of the principal\ngrain was oftentimes unnecessarily expended.\"\n\nBut in 1680 a stronger than either of these seized upon the doctrine\nand wielded it with power. Increase Mather, so open always to ideas\nfrom Europe, and always so powerful for good or evil in the cloonies,\npreached his sermon on \"Heaven's Alarm to the World,... wherein is shown\nthat fearful sights and signs in the heavens are the presages of great\ncalamities at hand.\" The texts were taken from the book of Revelation:\n\"And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven,\nburning, as it were a lamp,\" and \"Behold, the third woe cometh quickly.\"\nIn this, as in various other sermons, he supports the theological\ncometary theory fully. He insists that \"we are fallen into the dregs\nof time,\" and that the day of judgment is evidently approaching. He\nexplains away the words of Jeremiah--\"Be not dismayed at signs in the\nheavens\"--and shows that comets have been forerunners of nearly every\nform of evil. Having done full justice to evils thus presaged in\nscriptural times, he begins a similar display in modern history by\nciting blazing stars which foretold the invasions of Goths, Huns,\nSaracens, and Turks, and warns gainsayers by citing the example of\nVespasian, who, after ridiculing a comet, soon died. The general shape\nand appearance of comets, he thinks, betoken their purpose, and he cites\nTertullian to prove them \"God's sharp razors on mankind, whereby he doth\npoll, and his scythe whereby he doth shear down multitudes of sinful\ncreatures.\" At last, rising to a fearful height, he declares: \"For the\nLord hath fired his beacon in the heavens among the stars of God there;\nthe fearful sight is not yet out of sight. The warning piece of heaven\nis going off. Now, then, if the Lord discharge his murdering pieces from\non high, and men be found in their sins unfit for death, their blood\nshall be upon them.\" And again, in an agony of supplication, he cries\nout: \"Do we see the sword blazing over us? Let it put us upon crying\nto God, that the judgment be diverted and not return upon us again so\nspeedily.... Doth God threaten our very heavens? O pray unto him, that he\nwould not take away stars and send comets to succeed them.\"(112)\n\n\n     (112) For Danforth, see his Astronomical Descritption of the Late Comet\nor Blazing Star, Together with a Brief Theological Application Thereof,\n1664. For Morton, see his Memorial, pp. 251, 252,; also 309, 310. Texts\ncited by Mather were Rev., viii, 10, and xi, 14.\n\n\nTwo years later, in August, 1682, he followed this with another sermon\non \"The Latter Sign,\" \"wherein is showed that the voice of God in\nsignal providences, especially when repeated and iterated, ought to be\nhearkened unto.\" Here, too, of course, the comet comes in for a large\nshare of attention. But his tone is less sure: even in the midst of all\nhis arguments appears an evident misgiving. The thoughts of Newton in\nscience and Bayle in philosophy were evidently tending to accomplish\nthe prophecy of Seneca. Mather's alarm at this is clear. His natural\ntendency is to uphold the idea that a comet is simply a fire-ball flung\nfrom the hand of an avenging God at a guilty world, but he evidently\nfeels obliged to yield something to the scientific spirit; hence, in the\nDiscourse concerning Comets, published in 1683, he declares: \"There are\nthose who think that, inasmuch as comets may be supposed to proceed from\nnatural causes, there is no speaking voice of Heaven in them beyond what\nis to be said of all other works of God. But certain it is that many\nthings which may happen according to the course of Nature are portentous\nsigns of Divine anger and prognostics of great evils hastening upon the\nworld.\" He then notices the eclipse of August, 1672, and adds: \"That\nyear the college was eclipsed by the death of the learned president\nthere, worthy Mr. Chauncey and two colonies--namely, Massachusetts and\nPlymouth--by the death of two governors, who died within a twelvemonth\nafter.... Shall, then, such mighty works of God as comets are be\ninsignificant things?\"(113)\n\n\n     (113) Increase Mather's Heaven's Alarm to the World was first printed\nat Boston in 1681, but was reprinted in 1682, and was appended, with the\nsermon on The Latter Sign, to the Discourse on Comets (Boston, 1683).\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE INVASION OF SCEPTICISM.\n\n\nVigorous as Mather's argument is, we see scepticism regarding \"signs\"\ncontinuing to invade the public mind; and, in spite of his threatenings,\nabout twenty years after we find a remarkable evidence of this progress\nin the fact that this scepticism has seized upon no less a personage\nthan that colossus of orthodoxy, his thrice illustrious son, Cotton\nMather himself; and him we find, in 1726, despite the arguments of his\nfather, declaring in his Manuductio: \"Perhaps there may be some need for\nme to caution you against being dismayed at the signs of the heavens,\nor having any superstitious fancies upon eclipses and the like.... I am\nwilling that you be apprehensive of nothing portentous in blazing stars.\nFor my part, I know not whether all our worlds, and even the sun itself,\nmay not fare the better for them.\"(114)\n\n\n     (114) For Cotton Mather, see the Manuductio, pp. 54, 55.\n\n\nCuriously enough, for this scientific scepticism in Cotton Mather there\nwas a cause identical with that which had developed superstition in the\nmind of his father. The same provincial tendency to receive implicitly\nany new European fashion in thinking or speech wrought upon both,\nplunging one into superstition and drawing the other out of it.\n\nEuropean thought, which New England followed, had at last broken away in\ngreat measure from the theological view of comets as signs and wonders.\nThe germ of this emancipating influence was mainly in the great\nutterance of Seneca; and we find in nearly every century some evidence\nthat this germ was still alive. This life became more and more evident\nafter the Reformation period, even though theologians in every Church\ndid their best to destroy it. The first series of attacks on the old\ntheological doctrine were mainly founded in philosophic reasoning. As\nearly as the first half of the sixteenth century we hear Julius Caesar\nScaliger protesting against the cometary superstition as \"ridiculous\nfolly.\"(115) Of more real importance was the treatise of Blaise de\nVigenere, published at Paris in 1578. In this little book various\nstatements regarding comets as signs of wrath or causes of evils are\ngiven, and then followed by a very gentle and quiet discussion, usually\ntending to develop that healthful scepticism which is the parent of\ninvestigation. A fair example of his mode of treating the subject is\nseen in his dealing with a bit of \"sacred science.\" This was simply\nthat \"comets menace princes and kings with death because they live more\ndelicately than other people; and, therefore, the air thickened and\ncorrupted by a comet would be naturally more injurious to them than to\ncommon folk who live on coarser food.\" To this De Vigenere answers that\nthere are very many persons who live on food as delicate as that enjoyed\nby princes and kings, and yet receive no harm from comets. He then goes\non to show that many of the greatest monarchs in history have met death\nwithout any comet to herald it.\n\n\n     (115) For Scaliger, see p. 20 of Dudith's book, cited below.\n\n\nIn the same year thoughtful scepticism of a similar sort found an\nadvocate in another part of Europe. Thomas Erastus, the learned and\ndevout professor of medicine at Heidelberg, put forth a letter dealing\nin the plainest terms with the superstition. He argued especially that\nthere could be no natural connection between the comet and pestilence,\nsince the burning of an exhalation must tend to purify rather than to\ninfect the air. In the following year the eloquent Hungarian divine\nDudith published a letter in which the theological theory was handled\neven more shrewdly, for he argued that, if comets were caused by the\nsins of mortals, they would never be absent from the sky. But these\nutterances were for the time brushed aside by the theological leaders of\nthought as shallow or impious.\n\nIn the seventeenth century able arguments against the superstition, on\ngeneral grounds, began to be multiplied. In Holland, Balthasar Bekker\nopposed this, as he opposed the witchcraft delusion, on general\nphilosophic grounds; and Lubienitzky wrote in a compromising spirit to\nprove that comets were as often followed by good as by evil events. In\nFrance, Pierre Petit, formerly geographer of Louis XIII, and an intimate\nfriend of Descartes, addressed to the young Louis XIV a vehement protest\nagainst the superstition, basing his arguments not on astronomy, but on\ncommon sense. A very effective part of the little treatise was devoted\nto answering the authority of the fathers of the early Church. To do\nthis, he simply reminded his readers that St. Augustine and St. John\nDamascenus had also opposed the doctrine of the antipodes. The book\ndid good service in France, and was translated in Germany a few years\nlater.(116)\n\n\n     (116) For Blaise de Vigenere, see his Traite des Cometes, Paris, 1578.\nFor Dudith, see his De Cometarum Dignificatione, Basle, 1579, to which\nthe letter of Erastus is appended. Bekker's views may be found in\nhis Onderzoek van de Betekening der Cometen, Leeuwarden, 1683. For\nLubienitsky's, see his Theatrum Cometicum, Amsterdam, 1667, in part\nii: Historia Cometarum, preface \"to the reader.\" For Petit, see his\nDissertation sur la Nature des Cometes, Paris, 1665 (German translation,\nDresden and Zittau, 1681).\n\n\nAll these were denounced as infidels and heretics, yet none the less did\nthey set men at thinking, and prepare the way for a far greater genius;\nfor toward the end of the same century the philosophic attack was taken\nup by Pierre Bayle, and in the whole series of philosophic champions he\nis chief. While professor at the University of Sedan he had observed the\nalarm caused by the comet of 1680, and he now brought all his reasoning\npowers to bear upon it. Thoughts deep and witty he poured out in volume\nafter volume. Catholics and Protestants were alike scandalized. Catholic\nFrance spurned him, and Jurieu, the great Reformed divine, called his\ncometary views \"atheism,\" and tried hard to have Protestant Holland\ncondemn him. Though Bayle did not touch immediately the mass of mankind,\nhe wrought with power upon men who gave themselves the trouble of\nthinking. It was indeed unfortunate for the Church that theologians,\ninstead of taking the initiative in this matter, left it to Bayle; for,\nin tearing down the pretended scriptural doctrine of comets, he tore\ndown much else: of all men in his time, no one so thoroughly prepared\nthe way for Voltaire.\n\nBayle's whole argument is rooted in the prophecy of Seneca. He declares:\n\"Comets are bodies subject to the ordinary law of Nature, and not\nprodigies amenable to no law.\" He shows historically that there is no\nreason to regard comets as portents of earthly evils. As to the fact\nthat such evils occur after the passage of comets across the sky, he\ncompares the person believing that comets cause these evils to a woman\nlooking out of a window into a Paris street and believing that the\ncarriages pass because she looks out. As to the accomplishment of some\npredictions, he cites the shrewd saying of Henry IV, to the effect that\n\"the public will remember one prediction that comes true better than all\nthe rest that have proved false.\" Finally, he sums up by saying: \"The\nmore we study man, the more does it appear that pride is his ruling\npassion, and that he affects grandeur even in his misery. Mean and\nperishable creature that he is, he has been able to persuade men that he\ncan not die without disturbing the whole course of Nature and obliging\nthe heavens to put themselves to fresh expense. In order to light his\nfuneral pomp. Foolish and ridiculous vanity! If we had a just idea of\nthe universe, we should soon comprehend that the death or birth of a\nprince is too insignificant a matter to stir the heavens.\"(117)\n\n\n     (117) Regarding Bayle, see Madler, Himmelskunde, vol. i, p. 327.\nFor special points of interest in Bayle's arguments, see his Pensees\nDiverses sur les Cometes, Amsterdam, 1749, pp. 79, 102, 134, 206. For\nthe response to Jurieu, see the continuation des Pensees, Rotterdam,\n1705; also Champion, p. 164, Lecky, ubi supra, and Guillemin, pp. 29,\n30.\n\n\nThis great philosophic champion of right reason was followed by a\nliterary champion hardly less famous; for Fontenelle now gave to the\nFrench theatre his play of The Comet, and a point of capital importance\nin France was made by rendering the army of ignorance ridiculous.(118)\n\n\n     (118) See Fontenelle, cited by Champion, p. 167.\n\n\nSuch was the line of philosophic and literary attack, as developed from\nScaliger to Fontenelle. But beneath and in the midst of all of it, from\nfirst to last, giving firmness, strength, and new sources of vitality to\nit, was the steady development of scientific effort; and to the\nseries of great men who patiently wrought and thought out the truth by\nscientific methods through all these centuries belong the honours of the\nvictory.\n\nFor generations men in various parts of the world had been making\ncareful observations on these strange bodies. As far back as the time\nwhen Luther and Melanchthon and Zwingli were plunged into alarm by\nvarious comets from 1531 to 1539, Peter Apian kept his head sufficiently\ncool to make scientific notes of their paths through the heavens. A\nlittle later, when the great comet of 1556 scared popes, emperors, and\nreformers alike, such men as Fabricius at Vienna and Heller at Nuremberg\nquietly observed its path. In vain did men like Dieterich and Heerbrand\nand Celich from various parts of Germany denounce such observations and\ninvestigations as impious; they were steadily continued, and in 1577\ncame the first which led to the distinct foundation of the modern\ndoctrine. In that year appeared a comet which again plunged Europe into\nalarm. In every European country this alarm was strong, but in Germany\nstrongest of all. The churches were filled with terror-stricken\nmultitudes. Celich preaching at Magdeburg was echoed by Heerbrand\npreaching at Tubingen, and both these from thousands of other pulpits,\nCatholic and Protestant, throughout Europe. In the midst of all this\ndin and outcry a few men quietly but steadily observed the monster; and\nTycho Brahe announced, as the result, that its path lay farther from\nthe earth than the orbit of the moon. Another great astronomical genius,\nKepler, confirmed this. This distinct beginning of the new doctrine was\nbitterly opposed by theologians; they denounced it as one of the evil\nresults of that scientific meddling with the designs of Providence\nagainst which they had so long declaimed in pulpits and professors'\nchairs; they even brought forward some astronomers ambitious or\nwrong-headed enough to testify that Tycho and Kepler were in error.(119)\n\n\n     (119) See Madler, Himmelskunde, vol. i, pp. 181, 197; also Wolf, Gesch.\nd. Astronomie, and Janssen, Gesch. d. deutschen Volkes, vol. v, p. 350.\nHeerbrand's sermon, cited above, is a good specimen of the theologic\nattitude. See Pingre, vol. ii, p. 81.\n\n\nNothing could be more natural than such opposition; for this simple\nannouncement by Tycho Brahe began a new era. It shook the very\nfoundation of cometary superstition. The Aristotelian view, developed by\nthe theologians, was that what lies within the moon's orbit appertains\nto the earth and is essentially transitory and evil, while what lies\nbeyond it belongs to the heavens and is permanent, regular, and pure.\nTycho Brahe and Kepler, therefore, having by means of scientific\nobservation and thought taken comets out of the category of meteors and\nappearances in the neighbourhood of the earth, and placed them among the\nheavenly bodies, dealt a blow at the very foundations of the theological\nargument, and gave a great impulse to the idea that comets are\nthemselves heavenly bodies moving regularly and in obedience to law.\n\n\n\n\nIV. THEOLOGICAL EFFORTS AT COMPROMISE.--THE FINAL VICTORY OF SCIENCE.\n\n\nAttempts were now made to compromise. It was declared that, while\nsome comets were doubtless supralunar, some must be sublunar. But this\nadmission was no less fatal on another account. During many centuries\nthe theory favoured by the Church had been, as we have seen, that the\nearth was surrounded by hollow spheres, concentric and transparent,\nforming a number of glassy strata incasing one another \"like the\ndifferent coatings of an onion,\" and that each of these in its movement\nabout the earth carries one or more of the heavenly bodies. Some\nmaintained that these spheres were crystal; but Lactantius, and with him\nvarious fathers of the Church, spoke of the heavenly vault as made of\nice. Now, the admission that comets could move beyond the moon was fatal\nto this theory, for it sent them crashing through these spheres of\nice or crystal, and therefore through the whole sacred fabric of the\nPtolemaic theory.(120)\n\n\n     (120) For these features in cometary theory, see Pingre, vol. i, p. 89;\nalso Humboldt, Cosmos (English translation, London, 1868), vol. iii, p.\n169.\n\n\nHere we may pause for a moment to note one of the chief differences\nbetween scientific and theological reasoning considered in themselves.\nKepler's main reasoning as to the existence of a law for cometary\nmovement was right; but his secondary reasoning, that comets move nearly\nin straight lines, was wrong. His right reasoning was developed by\nGassendi in France, by Borelli in Italy, by Hevel and Doerfel in\nGermany, by Eysat and Bernouilli in Switzerland, by Percy and--most\nimportant of all, as regards mathematical demonstration--by Newton\nin England. The general theory, which was true, they accepted and\ndeveloped; the secondary theory, which was found untrue, they rejected;\nand, as a result, both of what they thus accepted and of what they\nrejected, was evolved the basis of the whole modern cometary theory.\n\nVery different was this from the theological method. As a rule, when\nthere arises a thinker as great in theology as Kepler in science, the\nwhole mass of his conclusions ripens into a dogma. His disciples labour\nnot to test it, but to establish it; and while, in the Catholic Church,\nit becomes a dogma to be believed or disbelieved under the penalty of\ndamnation, it becomes in the Protestant Church the basis for one more\nsect.\n\nVarious astronomers laboured to develop the truth discovered by Tycho\nand strengthened by Kepler. Cassini seemed likely to win for Italy the\nglory of completing the great structure; but he was sadly fettered by\nChurch influences, and was obliged to leave most of the work to others.\nEarly among these was Hevel. He gave reasons for believing that comets\nmove in parabolic curves toward the sun. Then came a man who developed\nthis truth further--Samuel Doerfel; and it is a pleasure to note that\nhe was a clergyman. The comet of 1680, which set Erni in Switzerland,\nMather in New England, and so many others in all parts of the world\nat declaiming, set Doerfel at thinking. Undismayed by the authority of\nOrigen and St. John Chrysostom, the arguments of Luther, Melanchthon,\nand Zwingli, the outcries of Celich, Heerbrand, and Dieterich, he\npondered over the problem in his little Saxon parsonage, until in\n1681 he set forth his proofs that comets are heavenly bodies moving in\nparabolas of which the sun is the focus. Bernouilli arrived at the same\nconclusion; and, finally, this great series of men and works was closed\nby the greatest of all, when Newton, in 1686, having taken the data\nfurnished by the comet of 1680, demonstrated that comets are guided in\ntheir movements by the same principle that controls the planets in their\norbits. Thus was completed the evolution of this new truth in science.\n\nYet we are not to suppose that these two great series of philosophical\nand scientific victories cleared the field of all opponents. Declamation\nand pretended demonstration of the old theologic view were still heard;\nbut the day of complete victory dawned when Halley, after most thorough\nobservation and calculation, recognised the comet of 1682 as one which\nhad already appeared at stated periods, and foretold its return in about\nseventy-five years; and the battle was fully won when Clairaut, seconded\nby Lalande and Mme. Lepaute, predicted distinctly the time when\nthe comet would arrive at its perihelion, and this prediction was\nverified.(121) Then it was that a Roman heathen philosopher was proved\nmore infallible and more directly under Divine inspiration than a Roman\nChristian pontiff; for the very comet which the traveller finds to-day\ndepicted on the Bayeux tapestry as portending destruction to Harold and\nthe Saxons at the Norman invasion of England, and which was regarded by\nPope Calixtus as portending evil to Christendom, was found six centuries\nlater to be, as Seneca had prophesied, a heavenly body obeying the great\nlaws of the universe, and coming at regular periods. Thenceforth the\nwhole ponderous enginery of this superstition, with its proof-texts\nregarding \"signs in the heavens,\" its theological reasoning to show\nthe moral necessity of cometary warnings, and its ecclesiastical\nfulminations against the \"atheism, godlessness, and infidelity\" of\nscientific investigation, was seen by all thinking men to be as weak\nagainst the scientific method as Indian arrows against needle guns.\nCopernicus, Galileo, Cassini, Doerfel, Newton, Halley, and Clairaut had\ngained the victory.(122)\n\n\n     (121) See Pingre, vol. i, p. 53; Grant, History of Physical Astronomy,\np. 305, etc., etc. For a curious partial anticipation by Hooke, in 1664,\nof the great truth announced by Halley in 1682, see Pepy's Diary for\nMarch 1, 1664. For excellent summaries of the whole work of Halley and\nClairaut and their forerunners and associates, see Pingre, Madler, Wolf,\nArago, et al.\n\n\n     (122) In accordance with Halley's prophecy, the comet of 1682 has\nreturned in 1759 and 1835. See Madler, Guillemin, Watson, Grant,\nDelambre, Proctor, article Astronomy in Encycl. Brit., and especially\nfor details, Wolf, pp. 407-412 and 701-722. For clear statement\nregarding Doerfel, see Wolf, p. 411.\n\n\nIt is instructive to note, even after the main battle was lost, a\nrenewal of the attempt, always seen under like circumstances, to effect\na compromise, to establish a \"safe science\" on grounds pseudo-scientific\nand pseudo-theologic. Luther, with his strong common sense, had\nforeshadowed this; Kepler had expressed a willingness to accept it.\nIt was insisted that comets might be heavenly bodies moving in regular\norbits, and even obedient to law, and yet be sent as \"signs in the\nheavens.\" Many good men clung longingly to this phase of the old belief,\nand in 1770 Semler, professor at Halle, tried to satisfy both sides. He\ninsisted that, while from a scientific point of view comets could not\nexercise any physical influence upon the world, yet from a religious\npoint of view they could exercise a moral influence as reminders of the\nJust Judge of the Universe.\n\nSo hard was it for good men to give up the doctrine of \"signs in the\nheavens,\" seemingly based upon Scripture and exercising such a healthful\nmoral tendency! As is always the case after such a defeat, these\nvotaries of \"sacred science\" exerted the greatest ingenuity in devising\nstatements and arguments to avert the new doctrine. Within our own\ncentury the great Catholic champion, Joseph de Maistre, echoed these in\ndeclaring his belief that comets are special warnings of evil. So, too,\nin Protestant England, in 1818, the Gentleman's Magazine stated that\nunder the malign influence of a recent comet \"flies became blind and\ndied early in the season,\" and \"the wife of a London shoemaker had four\nchildren at a birth.\" And even as late as 1829 Mr. Forster, an English\nphysician, published a work to prove that comets produce hot summers,\ncold winters, epidemics, earthquakes, clouds of midges and locusts, and\nnearly every calamity conceivable. He bore especially upon the fact that\nthe comet of 1665 was coincident with the plague in London, apparently\nforgetting that the other great cities of England and the Continent were\nnot thus visited; and, in a climax, announces the fact that the comet of\n1663 \"made all the cats in Westphalia sick.\"\n\nThere still lingered one little cloud-patch of superstition, arising\nmainly from the supposed fact that comets had really been followed by\na marked rise in temperature. Even this poor basis for the belief\nthat they might, after all, affect earthly affairs was swept away, and\nscience won here another victory; for Arago, by thermometric records\ncarefully kept at Paris from 1735 to 1781, proved that comets had\nproduced no effect upon temperature. Among multitudes of similar\nexamples he showed that, in some years when several comets appeared, the\ntemperature was lower than in other years when few or none appeared. In\n1737 there were two comets, and the weather was cool; in 1785 there was\nno comet, and the weather was hot; through the whole fifty years it was\nshown that comets were sometimes followed by hot weather, sometimes\nby cool, and that no rule was deducible. The victory of science was\ncomplete at every point.(123)\n\n\n     (123) For Forster, see his Illustrations of the Atmospherical Origin of\nEpidemic Diseases, Chelmsford, 1829, cited by Arago; also in Quarterly\nReview for April, 1835. For the writings of several on both sides, and\nespecially those who sought to save, as far as possible, the sacred\ntheory of comets, see Madler, vol. ii, p. 384 et seq., and Wolf, p. 186.\n\n\nBut in this history there was one little exhibition so curious as to be\nworthy of notice, though its permanent effect upon thought was small.\nWhiston and Burnet, so devoted to what they considered sacred science,\nhad determined that in some way comets must be instruments of Divine\nwrath. One of them maintained that the deluge was caused by the tail of\na comet striking the earth; the other put forth the theory that comets\nare places of punishment for the damned--in fact, \"flying hells.\" The\ntheories of Whiston and Burnet found wide acceptance also in Germany,\nmainly through the all-powerful mediation of Gottsched, so long, from\nhis professor's chair at Leipsic, the dictator of orthodox thought,\nwho not only wrote a brief tractate of his own upon the subject, but\nfurnished a voluminous historical introduction to the more elaborate\ntreatise of Heyn. In this book, which appeared at Leipsic in 1742, the\nagency of comets in the creation, the flood, and the final destruction\nof the world is fully proved. Both these theories were, however, soon\ndiscredited.\n\nPerhaps the more interesting of them can best be met by another, which,\nif not fully established, appears much better based--namely, that in\n1868 the earth passed directly through the tail of a comet, with\nno deluge, no sound of any wailings of the damned, with but slight\nappearances here and there, only to be detected by the keen sight of the\nmeteorological or astronomical observer.\n\nIn our own country superstitious ideas regarding comets continued to\nhave some little currency; but their life was short. The tendency shown\nby Cotton Mather, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, toward\nacknowledging the victory of science, was completed by the utterances\nof Winthrop, professor at Harvard, who in 1759 published two lectures\non comets, in which he simply and clearly revealed the truth, never\nscoffing, but reasoning quietly and reverently. In one passage he says:\n\"To be thrown into a panic whenever a comet appears, on account of the\nill effects which some few of them might possibly produce, if they were\nnot under proper direction, betrays a weakness unbecoming a reasonable\nbeing.\"\n\nA happy influence in this respect was exercised on both continents by\nJohn Wesley. Tenaciously as he had held to the supposed scriptural view\nin so many other matters of science, in this he allowed his reason\nto prevail, accepted the demonstrations of Halley, and gloried in\nthem.(124)\n\n\n     (124) For Heyn, see his Versuch einer Betrachtung uber die cometun, die\nSundfluth und das Vorspeil des jungsten Gerichts, Leipsic, 1742. A Latin\nversion, of the same year, bears the title, Specimen Cometologiae Sacre.\nFor the theory that the earth encountered the tail of a comet, see\nGuillemin and Watson. For survival of the old idea in America, see a\nSermon of Israel Loring, of Sudbury, published in 1722. For Prof.\nJ. Winthrop, see his Comets. For Wesley, see his Natural Philosophy,\nLondon, 1784, vol. iii, p. 303.\n\n\nThe victory was indeed complete. Happily, none of the fears expressed by\nConrad Dieterich and Increase Mather were realized. No catastrophe has\nensued either to religion or to morals. In the realm of religion the\nPsalms of David remain no less beautiful, the great utterances of the\nHebrew prophets no less powerful; the Sermon on the Mount, \"the first\ncommandment, and the second, which is like unto it,\" the definition\nof \"pure religion and undefiled\" by St. James, appeal no less to\nthe deepest things in the human heart. In the realm of morals, too,\nserviceable as the idea of firebrands thrown by the right hand of\nan avenging God to scare a naughty world might seem, any competent\nhistorian must find that the destruction of the old theological cometary\ntheory was followed by moral improvement rather than by deterioration.\nWe have but to compare the general moral tone of society to-day,\nwretchedly imperfect as it is, with that existing in the time when this\nsuperstition had its strongest hold. We have only to compare the court\nof Henry VIII with the court of Victoria, the reign of the later Valois\nand earlier Bourbon princes with the present French Republic, the period\nof the Medici and Sforzas and Borgias with the period of Leo XIII and\nHumbert, the monstrous wickedness of the Thirty Years' War with the\nennobling patriotism of the Franco-Prussian struggle, and the despotism\nof the miserable German princelings of the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies with the reign of the Emperor William. The gain is not simply\nthat mankind has arrived at a clearer conception of law in the universe;\nnot merely that thinking men see more clearly that we are part of a\nsystem not requiring constant patching and arbitrary interference; but\nperhaps best of all is the fact that science has cleared away one more\nseries of those dogmas which tend to debase rather than to develop man's\nwhole moral and religious nature. In this emancipation from terror and\nfanaticism, as in so many other results of scientific thinking, we have\na proof of the inspiration of those great words, \"THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE\nYOU FREE.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.  FROM GENESIS TO GEOLOGY.\n\n\n\n\nI. GROWTH OF THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS.\n\n\nAmong the philosophers of Greece we find, even at an early period, germs\nof geological truth, and, what is of vast importance, an atmosphere\nin which such germs could grow. These germs were transmitted to Roman\nthought; an atmosphere of tolerance continued; there was nothing which\nforbade unfettered reasoning regarding either the earth's strata or\nthe remains of former life found in them, and under the Roman Empire a\nperiod of fruitful observation seemed sure to begin.\n\nBut, as Christianity took control of the world, there came a great\nchange. The earliest attitude of the Church toward geology and its\nkindred sciences was indifferent, and even contemptuous. According to\nthe prevailing belief, the earth was a \"fallen world,\" and was soon\nto be destroyed. Why, then, should it be studied? Why, indeed, give a\nthought to it? The scorn which Lactantius and St. Augustine had cast\nupon the study of astronomy was extended largely to other sciences.\n(125)\n\n\n     (125) For a compact and admirable statement as to the dawn of geological\nconceptions in Greece and Rome, see Mr. Lester Ward's essay on\npaleobotany in the Fifth Annual Report of the United States Geological\nSurvey, for 1883-'84. As to the reasons why Greek philosophers did\ncomparatively so little for geology, see D'Archiac, Geologie, p. 18. For\nthe contempt felt by Lactantius and St. Augustine toward astronomical\nscience, see foregoing chapters on Astronomy and Geography.\n\n\nBut the germs of scientific knowledge and thought developed in the\nancient world could be entirely smothered neither by eloquence nor by\nlogic; some little scientific observation must be allowed, though all\nclose reasoning upon it was fettered by theology. Thus it was that St.\nJerome insisted that the broken and twisted crust of the earth exhibits\nthe wrath of God against sin, and Tertullian asserted that fossils\nresulted from the flood of Noah.\n\nTo keep all such observation and reasoning within orthodox limits, St.\nAugustine, about the beginning of the fifth century, began an effort to\ndevelop from these germs a growth in science which should be sacred and\nsafe. With this intent he prepared his great commentary on the work of\ncreation, as depicted in Genesis, besides dwelling upon the subject in\nother writings. Once engaged in this work, he gave himself to it more\nearnestly than any other of the earlier fathers ever did; but his vast\npowers of research and thought were not directed to actual observation\nor reasoning upon observation. The keynote of his whole method is seen\nin his famous phrase, \"Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority\nof Scripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of\nthe human mind.\" All his thought was given to studying the letter of\nthe sacred text, and to making it explain natural phenomena by methods\npurely theological.(126)\n\n\n     (126) For citations and authorities on these points, see the chapter on\nMeteorology.\n\n\nAmong the many questions he then raised and discussed may be mentioned\nsuch as these: \"What caused the creation of the stars on the fourth\nday?\" \"Were beasts of prey and venomous animals created before, or\nafter, the fall of Adam? If before, how can their creation be reconciled\nwith God's goodness; if afterward, how can their creation be reconciled\nto the letter of God's Word?\" \"Why were only beasts and birds brought\nbefore Adam to be named, and not fishes and marine animals?\" \"Why did\nthe Creator not say, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' to plants as well as to\nanimals?\"(127)\n\n\n     (127) See Augustine, De Genesi, ii, 13, 15, et seq.; ix, 12 et seq. For\nthe reference to St. Jerome, see Shields, Final Philosophy, p. 119; also\nLeyell, Introduction to Geology, vol. i, chap. ii.\n\n\nSundry answers to these and similar questions formed the main\ncontributions of the greatest of the Latin fathers to the scientific\nknowledge of the world, after a most thorough study of the biblical text\nand a most profound application of theological reasoning. The results\nof these contributions were most important. In this, as in so many\nother fields, Augustine gave direction to the main current of thought in\nwestern Europe, Catholic and Protestant, for nearly thirteen centuries.\n\nIn the ages that succeeded, the vast majority of prominent scholars\nfollowed him implicitly. Even so strong a man as Pope Gregory the Great\nyielded to his influence, and such leaders of thought as St. Isidore,\nin the seventh century, and the Venerable Bede, in the eighth, planting\nthemselves upon Augustine's premises, only ventured timidly to extend\ntheir conclusions upon lines he had laid down.\n\nIn his great work on Etymologies, Isidore took up Augustine's attempt to\nbring the creation into satisfactory relations with the book of Genesis,\nand, as to fossil remains, he, like Tertullian, thought that they\nresulted from the Flood of Noah. In the following century Bede developed\nthe same orthodox traditions.(128)\n\n\n     (128) For Isidore, see the Etymologiae, xi, 4, xiii, 22. For Bede, see\nthe Hexaemeron, i, ii, in Migne, tome xci.\n\n\nThe best guess, in a geological sense, among the followers of St.\nAugustine was made by an Irish monkish scholar, who, in order to\ndiminish the difficulty arising from the distribution of animals,\nespecially in view of the fact that the same animals are found in\nIreland as in England, held that various lands now separated were once\nconnected. But, alas! the exigencies of theology forced him to place\ntheir separation later than the Flood. Happily for him, such facts were\nnot yet known as that the kangaroo is found only on an island in\nthe South Pacific, and must therefore, according to his theory, have\nmigrated thither with all his progeny, and along a causeway so\ncuriously constructed that none of the beasts of prey, who were his\nfellow-voyagers in the ark, could follow him.\n\nThese general lines of thought upon geology and its kindred science of\nzoology were followed by St. Thomas Aquinas and by the whole body\nof medieval theologians, so far as they gave any attention to such\nsubjects.\n\nThe next development of geology, mainly under Church guidance, was by\nmeans of the scholastic theology. Phrase-making was substituted for\ninvestigation. Without the Church and within it wonderful contributions\nwere thus made. In the eleventh century Avicenna accounted for the\nfossils by suggesting a \"stone-making force\";(129) in the thirteenth,\nAlbert the Great attributed them to a \"formative quality;\"(130) in the\nfollowing centuries some philosophers ventured the idea that they grew\nfrom seed; and the Aristotelian doctrine of spontaneous generation was\nconstantly used to prove that these stony fossils possessed powers of\nreproduction like plants and animals.(131)\n\n\n     (129) Vis lapidifica.\n\n\n     (130) Virtus formativa.\n\n\n     (131) See authorities given in Mr. Ward's assay, as above.\n\n\nStill, at various times and places, germs implanted by Greek and Roman\nthought were warmed into life. The Arabian schools seem to have been\nless fettered by the letter of the Koran than the contemporary Christian\nscholars by the letter of the Bible; and to Avicenna belongs the credit\nof first announcing substantially the modern geological theory of\nchanges in the earth's surface.(132)\n\n\n     (132) For Avicenna, see Lyell and D'Archiac.\n\n\nThe direct influence of the Reformation was at first unfavourable to\nscientific progress, for nothing could be more at variance with any\nscientific theory of the development of the universe than the ideas of\nthe Protestant leaders. That strict adherence to the text of Scripture\nwhich made Luther and Melanchthon denounce the idea that the planets\nrevolve about the sun, was naturally extended to every other scientific\nstatement at variance with the sacred text. There is much reason to\nbelieve that the fetters upon scientific thought were closer under the\nstrict interpretation of Scripture by the early Protestants than they\nhad been under the older Church. The dominant spirit among the Reformers\nis shown by the declaration of Peter Martyr to the effect that, if\na wrong opinion should obtain regarding the creation as described in\nGenesis, \"all the promises of Christ fall into nothing, and all the life\nof our religion would be lost.\"(133)\n\n\n     (133) See his Commentary on Genesis, cited by Zoeckler, Geschichte der\nBeziehungen zwischen Theologie und Naturwissenschaft, vol. i, p. 690.\n\n\nIn the times immediately succeeding the Reformation matters went from\nbad to worse. Under Luther and Melanchthon there was some little freedom\nof speculation, but under their successors there was none; to question\nany interpretation of Luther came to be thought almost as wicked as\nto question the literal interpretation of the Scriptures themselves.\nExamples of this are seen in the struggles between those who held that\nbirds were created entirely from water and those who held that they were\ncreated out of water and mud. In the city of Lubeck, the ancient centre\nof the Hanseatic League, close at the beginning of the seventeenth\ncentury, Pfeiffer, \"General Superintendent\" or bishop in those parts,\npublished his Pansophia Mosaica, calculated, as he believed, to beat\nback science forever. In a long series of declamations he insisted that\nin the strict text of Genesis alone is safety, that it contains all\nwisdom and knowledge, human and divine. This being the case, who could\ncare to waste time on the study of material things and give thought to\nthe structure of the world? Above all, who, after such a proclamation\nby such a ruler in the Lutheran Israel, would dare to talk of the \"days\"\nmentioned in Genesis as \"periods of time\"; or of the \"firmament\" as not\nmeaning a solid vault over the universe; or of the \"waters above the\nheavens\" as not contained in a vast cistern supported by the heavenly\nvault; or of the \"windows of heaven\" as a figure of speech?(134)\n\n\n     (134) For Pfeiffer, see Zoeckler, vol. i, pp. 688, 689.\n\n\nIn England the same spirit was shown even as late as the time of\nSir Matthew Hale. We find in his book on the Origination of Mankind,\npublished in 1685, the strictest devotion to a theory of creation based\nupon the mere letter of Scripture, and a complete inability to draw\nknowledge regarding the earth's origin and structure from any other\nsource.\n\nWhile the Lutheran, Calvinistic, and Anglican Reformers clung to literal\ninterpretations of the sacred books, and turned their faces away from\nscientific investigation, it was among their contemporaries at the\nrevival of learning that there began to arise fruitful thought in this\nfield. Then it was, about the beginning of the sixteenth century, that\nLeonardo da Vinci, as great a genius in science as in art, broached\nthe true idea as to the origin of fossil remains; and his compatriot,\nFracastoro, developed this on the modern lines of thought. Others in\nother parts of Europe took up the idea, and, while mixing with it many\ncrudities, drew from it more and more truth. Toward the end of the\nsixteenth century Bernard Palissy, in France, took hold of it with the\nsame genius which he showed in artistic creation; but, remarkable as\nwere his assertions of scientific realities, they could gain little\nhearing. Theologians, philosophers, and even some scientific men of\nvalue, under the sway of scholastic phrases, continued to insist upon\nsuch explanations as that fossils were the product of \"fatty matter set\ninto a fermentation by heat\"; or of a \"lapidific juice\";(135) or of\na \"seminal air\";(136) or of a \"tumultuous movement of terrestrial\nexhalations\"; and there was a prevailing belief that fossil remains, in\ngeneral, might be brought under the head of \"sports of Nature,\" a pious\nturn being given to this phrase by the suggestion that these \"sports\"\nindicated some inscrutable purpose of the Almighty.\n\n\n     (135) Succus lapidificus.\n\n\n     (136) Aura seminalis.\n\n\nThis remained a leading orthodox mode of explanation in the Church,\nCatholic and Protestant, for centuries.\n\n\n\n\nII. EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW.\n\n\nBut the scientific method could not be entirely hidden; and, near the\nbeginning of the seventeenth century, De Clave, Bitaud, and De Villon\nrevived it in France. Straightway the theological faculty of Paris\nprotested against the scientific doctrine as unscriptural, destroyed the\noffending treatises, banished their authors from Paris, and forbade them\nto live in towns or enter places of public resort.(137)\n\n\n     (137) See Morley, Life of Palissy the Potter, vol. ii, p. 315 et seq.\n\n\nThe champions of science, though depressed for a time, quietly laboured\non, especially in Italy. Half a century later, Steno, a Dane, and\nScilla, an Italian, went still further in the right direction; and,\nthough they and their disciples took great pains to throw a tub to the\nwhale, in the shape of sundry vague concessions to the Genesis legends,\nthey developed geological truth more and more.\n\nIn France, the old theological spirit remained exceedingly powerful.\nAbout the middle of the eighteenth century Buffon made another attempt\nto state simple geological truths; but the theological faculty of the\nSorbonne dragged him at once from his high position, forced him to\nrecant ignominiously, and to print his recantation. It runs as follows:\n\"I declare that I had no intention to contradict the text of Scripture;\nthat I believe most firmly all therein related about the creation, both\nas to order of time and matter of fact. I abandon everything in my book\nrespecting the formation of the earth, and generally all which may be\ncontrary to the narrative of Moses.\" This humiliating document reminds\nus painfully of that forced upon Galileo a hundred years before.\n\nIt has been well observed by one of the greatest of modern authorities\nthat the doctrine which Buffon thus \"abandoned\" is as firmly established\nas that of the earth's rotation upon its axis.(138) Yet one hundred\nand fifty years were required to secure for it even a fair hearing; the\nprevailing doctrine of the Church continued to be that \"all things were\nmade at the beginning of the world,\" and that to say that stones\nand fossils were made before or since \"the beginning\" is contrary\nto Scripture. Again we find theological substitutes for scientific\nexplanation ripening into phrases more and more hollow--making fossils\n\"sports of Nature,\" or \"mineral concretions,\" or \"creations of plastic\nforce,\" or \"models\" made by the Creator before he had fully decided upon\nthe best manner of creating various beings.\n\n\n     (138) See citation and remark in Lyell's Principles of Geology, chap.\niii, p. 57; also Huxley, Essays on Controverted Questions, p. 62.\n\n\nOf this period, when theological substitutes for science were carrying\nall before them, there still exists a monument commemorating at the\nsame time a farce and a tragedy. This is the work of Johann Beringer,\nprofessor in the University of Wurzburg and private physician to\nthe Prince-Bishop--the treatise bearing the title Lithographiae\nWirceburgensis Specimen Primum, \"illustrated with the marvellous\nlikenesses of two hundred figured or rather insectiform stones.\"\nBeringer, for the greater glory of God, had previously committed\nhimself so completely to the theory that fossils are simply \"stones of\na peculiar sort, hidden by the Author of Nature for his own\npleasure,\"(139) that some of his students determined to give his faith\nin that pious doctrine a thorough trial. They therefore prepared a\ncollection of sham fossils in baked clay, imitating not only plants,\nreptiles, and fishes of every sort that their knowledge or imagination\ncould suggest, but even Hebrew and Syriac inscriptions, one of them\nthe name of the Almighty; and these they buried in a place where the\nprofessor was wont to search for specimens. The joy of Beringer on\nunearthing these proofs of the immediate agency of the finger of God in\ncreating fossils knew no bounds. At great cost he prepared this book,\nwhose twenty-two elaborate plates of facsimiles were forever to settle\nthe question in favour of theology and against science, and prefixed to\nthe work an allegorical title page, wherein not only the glory of his\nown sovereign, but that of heaven itself, was pictured as based upon a\npyramid of these miraculous fossils. So robust was his faith that not\neven a premature exposure of the fraud could dissuade him from the\npublication of his book. Dismissing in one contemptuous chapter this\nexposure as a slander by his rivals, he appealed to the learned world.\nBut the shout of laughter that welcomed the work soon convinced even its\nauthor. In vain did he try to suppress it; and, according to tradition,\nhaving wasted his fortune in vain attempts to buy up all the copies of\nit, and being taunted by the rivals whom he had thought to overwhelm, he\ndied of chagrin. Even death did not end his misfortunes. The copies\nof the first edition having been sold by a graceless descendant to a\nLeipsic bookseller, a second edition was brought out under a new title,\nand this, too, is now much sought as a precious memorial of human\ncredulity.(140)\n\n\n     (139) See Beringer's Lithographiae, etc., p. 91.\n\n\n     (140) See Carus, Geschichte der Zoologie, Munich, 1872, p. 467, note,\nand Reusch, Bibel und Natur, p. 197. A list of authorities upon this\nepisode, with the text of one of the epigrams circulated at poor\nBeringer's expense, is given by Dr. Reuss in the Serapeum for 1852, p.\n203. The book itself (the original impression) is in the White Library\nat Cornell University. For Beringer himself, see especially the\nencyclopedia of Ersch and Gruber, and the Allgemeine deutsche\nBiographie.\n\n\nBut even this discomfiture did not end the idea which had caused\nit, for, although some latitude was allowed among the various\ntheologico-scientific explanations, it was still held meritorious\nto believe that all fossils were placed in the strata on one of the\ncreative days by the hand of the Almighty, and that this was done for\nsome mysterious purpose, probably for the trial of human faith.\n\nStrange as it may at first seem, the theological war against a\nscientific method in geology was waged more fiercely in Protestant\ncountries than in Catholic. The older Church had learned by her costly\nmistakes, especially in the cases of Copernicus and Galileo, what\ndangers to her claim of infallibility lay in meddling with a growing\nscience. In Italy, therefore, comparatively little opposition was made,\nwhile England furnished the most bitter opponents to geology so long as\nthe controversy could be maintained, and the most active negotiators in\npatching up a truce on the basis of a sham science afterward. The Church\nof England did, indeed, produce some noble men, like Bishop Clayton\nand John Mitchell, who stood firmly by the scientific method; but these\nappear generally to have been overwhelmed by a chorus of churchmen and\ndissenters, whose mixtures of theology and science, sometimes tragic in\ntheir results and sometimes comic, are among the most instructive things\nin modern history.(141)\n\n\n     (141) For a comparison between the conduct of Italian and English\necclesiastics as regards geology, see Lyell, Principles of Geology,\ntenth English edition, vol. i, p. 33. For a philosophical statement of\nreasons why the struggle was more bitter and the attempt at deceptive\ncompromises more absurd in England than elsewhere, see Maury,\nL'Ancienne Academie des Sciences, second edition, p. 152. For very\nfrank confessions of the reasons why the Catholic Church has become\nmore careful in her dealings with science, see Roberts, The Pontifical\nDecrees against the Earth's Movement, London, 1885, especially pp. 94\nand 132, 133, and St. George Mivart's article in the Nineteenth Century\nfor July 1885. The first of these gentlemen, it must not be forgotten,\nis a Roman Catholic clergyman and the second an eminent layman of the\nsame Church, and both admit that it was the Pope, speaking ex cathedra,\nwho erred in the Galileo case; but their explanation is that God allowed\nthe Pope and Church to fall into this grievous error, which has cost so\ndear, in order to show once and for all that the Church has no right to\ndecide questions in Science.\n\n\nWe have already noted that there are generally three periods or phases\nin a theological attack upon any science. The first of these is marked\nby the general use of scriptural texts and statements against the new\nscientific doctrine; the third by attempts at compromise by means of\nfar-fetched reconciliations of textual statements with ascertained fact;\nbut the second or intermediate period between these two is frequently\nmarked by the pitting against science of some great doctrine in\ntheology. We saw this in astronomy, when Bellarmin and his followers\ninsisted that the scientific doctrine of the earth revolving about the\nsun is contrary to the theological doctrine of the incarnation. So now\nagainst geology it was urged that the scientific doctrine that fossils\nrepresent animals which died before Adam contradicts the theological\ndoctrine of Adam's fall and the statement that \"death entered the world\nby sin.\"\n\nIn this second stage of the theological struggle with geology, England\nwas especially fruitful in champions of orthodoxy, first among whom may\nbe named Thomas Burnet. In the last quarter of the seventeenth century,\njust at the time when Newton's great discovery was given to the\nworld, Burnet issued his Sacred Theory of the Earth. His position was\ncommanding; he was a royal chaplain and a cabinet officer. Planting\nhimself upon the famous text in the second epistle of Peter,(142) he\ndeclares that the flood had destroyed the old and created a new world.\nThe Newtonian theory he refuses to accept. In his theory of the deluge\nhe lays less stress upon the \"opening of the windows of heaven\" than\nupon the \"breaking up of the fountains of the great deep.\" On this\nlatter point he comes forth with great strength. His theory is that\nthe earth is hollow, and filled with fluid like an egg. Mixing together\nsundry texts from Genesis and from the second epistle of Peter, the\ntheological doctrine of the \"Fall,\" an astronomical theory regarding the\necliptic, and various notions adapted from Descartes, he insisted that,\nbefore sin brought on the Deluge, the earth was of perfect mathematical\nform, smooth and beautiful, \"like an egg,\" with neither seas nor islands\nnor valleys nor rocks, \"with not a wrinkle, scar, or fracture,\" and that\nall creation was equally perfect.\n\n\n     (142) See II Peter iii, 6.\n\n\nIn the second book of his great work Burnet went still further. As in\nhis first book he had mixed his texts of Genesis and St. Peter with\nDescartes, he now mixed the account of the Garden of Eden in Genesis\nwith heathen legends of the golden age, and concluded that before the\nflood there was over the whole earth perpetual spring, disturbed by no\nrain more severe than the falling of the dew.\n\nIn addition to his other grounds for denying the earlier existence of\nthe sea, he assigned the reason that, if there had been a sea before\nthe Deluge, sinners would have learned to build ships, and so, when the\nDeluge set in, could have saved themselves.\n\nThe work was written with much power, and attracted universal attention.\nIt was translated into various languages, and called forth a multitude\nof supporters and opponents in all parts of Europe. Strong men rose\nagainst it, especially in England, and among them a few dignitaries of\nthe Church; but the Church generally hailed the work with joy. Addison\npraised it in a Latin ode, and for nearly a century it exercised a\nstrong influence upon European feeling, and aided to plant more deeply\nthan ever the theological opinion that the earth as now existing\nis merely a ruin; whereas, before sin brought on the Flood, it was\nbeautiful in its \"egg-shaped form,\" and free from every imperfection.\n\nA few years later came another writer of the highest standing--William\nWhiston, professor at Cambridge, who in 1696 published his New Theory\nof the Earth. Unlike Burnet, he endeavoured to avail himself of the\nNewtonian idea, and brought in, to aid the geological catastrophe caused\nby human sin, a comet, which broke open \"the fountains of the great\ndeep.\"\n\nBut, far more important than either of these champions, there arose in\nthe eighteenth century, to aid in the subjection of science to theology,\nthree men of extraordinary power--John Wesley, Adam Clarke, and Richard\nWatson. All three were men of striking intellectual gifts, lofty\ncharacter, and noble purpose, and the first-named one of the greatest\nmen in English history; yet we find them in geology hopelessly fettered\nby the mere letter of Scripture, and by a temporary phase in theology.\nAs in regard to witchcraft and the doctrine of comets, so in regard to\ngeology, this theological view drew Wesley into enormous error.(143)\nThe great doctrine which Wesley, Watson, Clarke, and their compeers,\nfollowing St. Augustine, Bede, Peter Lombard, and a long line of the\ngreatest minds in the universal Church, thought it especially necessary\nto uphold against geologists was, that death entered the world by\nsin--by the first transgression of Adam and Eve. The extent to which the\nsupposed necessity of upholding this doctrine carried Wesley seems now\nalmost beyond belief. Basing his theology on the declaration that the\nAlmighty after creation found the earth and all created things \"very\ngood,\" he declares, in his sermon on the Cause and Cure of Earthquakes,\nthat no one who believes the Scriptures can deny that \"sin is the moral\ncause of earthquakes, whatever their natural cause may be.\" Again,\nhe declares that earthquakes are the \"effect of that curse which was\nbrought upon the earth by the original transgression.\" Bringing into\nconnection with Genesis the declaration of St. Paul that \"the whole\ncreation groaneth and travaileth together in pain until now,\" he finds\nadditional scriptural proof that the earthquakes were the result of\nAdam's fall. He declares, in his sermon on God's Approbation of His\nWorks, that \"before the sin of Adam there were no agitations within\nthe bowels of the earth, no violent convulsions, no concussions of the\nearth, no earthquakes, but all was unmoved as the pillars of heaven.\nThere were then no such things as eruptions of fires; no volcanoes or\nburning mountains.\" Of course, a science which showed that earthquakes\nhad been in operation for ages before the appearance of man on the\nplanet, and which showed, also, that those very earthquakes which he\nconsidered as curses resultant upon the Fall were really blessings,\nproducing the fissures in which we find today those mineral veins so\nessential to modern civilization, was entirely beyond his comprehension.\nHe insists that earthquakes are \"God's strange works of judgment, the\nproper effect and punishment of sin.\"\n\n\n     (143) For his statement that \"the giving up of witchcraft is in effect\nthe giving up of the Bible,\" see Welsey's Journal, 1766-'68.\n\n\nSo, too, as to death and pain. In his sermon on the Fall of Man he\ntook the ground that death and pain entered the world by Adam's\ntransgression, insisting that the carnage now going on among animals is\nthe result of Adam's sin. Speaking of the birds, beasts, and insects, he\nsays that, before sin entered the world by Adam's fall, \"none of these\nattempted to devour or in any way hurt one another\"; that \"the spider\nwas then as harmless as the fly and did not then lie in wait for blood.\"\nHere, again, Wesley arrayed his early followers against geology, which\nreveals, in the fossil remains of carnivorous animals, pain and death\ncountless ages before the appearance of man. The half-digested fragments\nof weaker animals within the fossilized bodies of the stronger have\ndestroyed all Wesley's arguments in behalf of his great theory.(144)\n\n\n     (144) See Wesley's sermon on God's Approbation of His Works, parts xi\nand xii.\n\n\nDr. Adam Clarke held similar views. He insisted that thorns and thistles\nwere given as a curse to human labour, on account of Adam's sin, and\nappeared upon the earth for the first time after Adam's fall. So, too,\nRichard Watson, the most prolific writer of the great evangelical reform\nperiod, and the author of the Institutes, the standard theological\ntreatise on the evangelical side, says, in a chapter treating of the\nFall, and especially of the serpent which tempted Eve: \"We have no\nreason at all to believe that the animal had a serpentine form in any\nmode or degree until his transformation. That he was then degraded to\na reptile, to go upon his belly, imports, on the contrary, an entire\nalteration and loss of the original form.\" All that admirable adjustment\nof the serpent to its environment which delights naturalists was to the\nWesleyan divine simply an evil result of the sin of Adam and Eve. Yet\nhere again geology was obliged to confront theology in revealing the\nPYTHON in the Eocene, ages before man appeared.(145)\n\n\n     (145) See Westminster Review, October, 1870, article on John Wesley's\nCosmogony, with citations from Wesley's Sermons, Watson's Institutes of\nTheology, Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, etc.\n\n\nThe immediate results of such teaching by such men was to throw many who\nwould otherwise have resorted to observation and investigation back upon\nscholastic methods. Again reappears the old system of solving the riddle\nby phrases. In 1733, Dr. Theodore Arnold urged the theory of \"models,\"\nand insisted that fossils result from \"infinitesimal particles brought\ntogether in the creation to form the outline of all the creatures\nand objects upon and within the earth\"; and Arnold's work gained wide\nacceptance.(146)\n\n\n     (146) See citation in Mr. Ward's article, as above, p. 390.\n\n\nSuch was the influence of this succession of great men that toward the\nclose of the last century the English opponents of geology on biblical\ngrounds seemed likely to sweep all before them. Cramping our whole\ninheritance of sacred literature within the rules of a historical\ncompend, they showed the terrible dangers arising from the revelations\nof geology, which make the earth older than the six thousand years\nrequired by Archbishop Usher's interpretation of the Old Testament.\nNor was this feeling confined to ecclesiastics. Williams, a thoughtful\nlayman, declared that such researches led to infidelity and atheism, and\nare \"nothing less than to depose the Almighty Creator of the universe\nfrom his office.\" The poet Cowper, one of the mildest of men, was also\nroused by these dangers, and in his most elaborate poem wrote:\n\n                \"Some drill and bore\nThe solid earth, and from the strata there Extract a register, by\nwhich we learn That He who made it, and revealed its date To Moses, was\nmistaken in its age!\"\n\n\nJohn Howard summoned England to oppose \"those scientific systems which\nare calculated to tear up in the public mind every remaining attachment\nto Christianity.\"\n\nWith this special attack upon geological science by means of the dogma\nof Adam's fall, the more general attack by the literal interpretation\nof the text was continued. The legendary husks and rinds of our sacred\nbooks were insisted upon as equally precious and nutritious with the\ngreat moral and religious truths which they envelop. Especially precious\nwere the six days--each \"the evening and the morning\"--and the exact\nstatements as to the time when each part of creation came into being. To\nsave these, the struggle became more and more desperate.\n\nDifficult as it is to realize it now, within the memory of many now\nliving the battle was still raging most fiercely in England, and both\nkinds of artillery usually brought against a new science were in full\nplay, and filling the civilized world with their roar.\n\nAbout half a century since, the Rev. J. Mellor Brown, the Rev. Henry\nCole, and others were hurling at all geologists alike, and especially at\nsuch Christian scholars as Dr. Buckland and Dean Conybeare and Pye Smith\nand Prof. Sedgwick, the epithets of \"infidel,\" \"impugner of the sacred\nrecord,\" and \"assailant of the volume of God.\"(147)\n\n\n     (147) For these citations, see Lyell, Principles of Geology,\nintroduction.\n\n\nThe favourite weapon of the orthodox party was the charge that the\ngeologists were \"attacking the truth of God.\" They declared geology\n\"not a subject of lawful inquiry,\" denouncing it as \"a dark art,\" as\n\"dangerous and disreputable,\" as \"a forbidden province,\" as\n\"infernal artillery,\" and as \"an awful evasion of the testimony of\nrevelation.\"(148)\n\n\n     (148) See Pye Smith, D. D., Geology and Scripture, pp. 156, 157, 168,\n169.\n\n\nThis attempt to scare men from the science having failed, various other\nmeans were taken. To say nothing about England, it is humiliating to\nhuman nature to remember the annoyances, and even trials, to which the\npettiest and narrowest of men subjected such Christian scholars in our\nown country as Benjamin Silliman and Edward Hitchcock and Louis Agassiz.\n\nBut it is a duty and a pleasure to state here that one great Christian\nscholar did honour to religion and to himself by quietly accepting\nthe claims of science and making the best of them, despite all these\nclamours. This man was Nicholas Wiseman, better known afterward as\nCardinal Wiseman. The conduct of this pillar of the Roman Catholic\nChurch contrasts admirably with that of timid Protestants, who were\nfilling England with shrieks and denunciations.(149)\n\n\n     (149) Wiseman, Twelve Lectures on the Connection between Science and\nRevealed Religion, first American edition, New York, 1837. As to the\ncomparative severity of the struggle regarding astronomy, geology, etc.,\nin the Catholic and Protestant countries, see Lecky's England in the\nEighteenth Century, chap. ix, p. 525.\n\n\nAnd here let it be noted that one of the most interesting skirmishes\nin this war occurred in New England. Prof. Stuart, of Andover, justly\nhonoured as a Hebrew scholar, declared that to speak of six periods of\ntime for the creation was flying in the face of Scripture; that Genesis\nexpressly speaks of six days, each made up of \"the evening and the\nmorning,\" and not six periods of time.\n\nTo him replied a professor in Yale College, James Kingsley. In an\narticle admirable for keen wit and kindly temper, he showed that Genesis\nspeaks just as clearly of a solid firmament as of six ordinary days,\nand that, if Prof. Stuart had surmounted one difficulty and accepted\nthe Copernican theory, he might as well get over another and accept the\nrevelations of geology. The encounter was quick and decisive, and the\nvictory was with science and the broader scholarship of Yale.(150)\n\n\n     (150) See Silliman's Journal, vol. xxx, p. 114.\n\nPerhaps the most singular attempt against geology was made by a fine\nsurvival of the eighteenth century Don--Dean Cockburn, of York--to SCOLD\nits champions off the field. Having no adequate knowledge of the new\nscience, he opened a battery of abuse, giving it to the world at large\nfrom the pulpit and through the press, and even through private letters.\nFrom his pulpit in York Minster he denounced Mary Somerville by name for\nthose studies in physical geography which have made her name honoured\nthroughout the world.\n\nBut the special object of his antipathy was the British Association for\nthe Advancement of Science. He issued a pamphlet against it which\nwent through five editions in two years, sent solemn warnings to its\npresident, and in various ways made life a burden to Sedgwick, Buckland,\nand other eminent investigators who ventured to state geological facts\nas they found them.\n\nThese weapons were soon seen to be ineffective; they were like Chinese\ngongs and dragon lanterns against rifled cannon; the work of science\nwent steadily on.(151)\n\n\n     (151) Prof. Goldwin Smith informs me that the papers of Sir Robert Peel,\nyet unpublished, contain very curious specimens of the epistles of Dean\nCockburn. See also Personal Recollections of Mary Somerville, Boston,\n1874, pp. 139 and 375. Compare with any statement of his religious views\nthat Dean Cockburn was able to make, the following from Mrs. Somerville:\n\"Nothing has afforded me so convincing a proof of the Deity as these\npurely mental conceptions of numerical and mathematical science which\nhave been, by slow degrees, vouchsafed to man--and are still granted\nin these latter times by the differential calculus, now superseded by\nthe higher algebra--all of which must have existed in that sublimely\nomniscient mind from eternity.\" See also The Life and Letters of Adam\nSedgwick, Cambridge, 1890, vol. ii, pp. 76 and following.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE FIRST GREAT EFFORT AT COMPROMISE, BASED ON THE FLOOD OF NOAH.\n\n\nLong before the end of the struggle already described, even at a very\nearly period, the futility of the usual scholastic weapons had been\nseen by the more keen-sighted champions of orthodoxy; and, as the\ndifficulties of the ordinary attack upon science became more and more\nevident, many of these champions endeavoured to patch up a truce. So\nbegan the third stage in the war--the period of attempts at compromise.\n\nThe position which the compromise party took was that the fossils were\nproduced by the Deluge of Noah.\n\nThis position was strong, for it was apparently based upon Scripture.\nMoreover, it had high ecclesiastical sanction, some of the fathers\nhaving held that fossil remains, even on the highest mountains,\nrepresented animals destroyed at the Deluge. Tertullian was especially\nfirm on this point, and St. Augustine thought that a fossil tooth\ndiscovered in North Africa must have belonged to one of the giants\nmentioned in Scripture.(152)\n\n\n     (152) For Tertullian, see his De Pallio, c. ii (Migne, Patr. Lat.,\nvol. ii, p. 1033). For Augustine's view, see Cuvier, Recherches sur les\nOssements fossiles, fourth edition, vol. ii, p. 143.\n\n\nIn the sixteenth century especially, weight began to be attached to\nthis idea by those who felt the worthlessness of various scholastic\nexplanations. Strong men in both the Catholic and the Protestant camps\naccepted it; but the man who did most to give it an impulse into modern\ntheology was Martin Luther. He easily saw that scholastic phrase-making\ncould not meet the difficulties raised by fossils, and he naturally\nurged the doctrine of their origin at Noah's Flood.(153)\n\n\n     (153) For Luther's opinion, see his Commentary on Genesis.\n\n\nWith such support, it soon became the dominant theory in Christendom:\nnothing seemed able to stand against it; but before the end of the same\nsixteenth century it met some serious obstacles. Bernard Palissy, one of\nthe most keen-sighted of scientific thinkers in France, as well as one\nof the most devoted of Christians, showed that it was utterly untenable.\nConscientious investigators in other parts of Europe, and especially\nin Italy, showed the same thing; all in vain.(154) In vain did good men\nprotest against the injury sure to be brought upon religion by tying it\nto a scientific theory sure to be exploded; the doctrine that fossils\nare the remains of animals drowned at the Flood continued to be upheld\nby the great majority of theological leaders for nearly three centuries\nas \"sound doctrine,\" and as a blessed means of reconciling science\nwith Scripture. To sustain this scriptural view, efforts energetic and\npersistent were put forth both by Catholics and Protestants.\n\n\n\n     (154) For a very full statement of the honourable record of Italy in\nthis respect, and for the enlightened views of some Italian churchmen,\nsee Stoppani, Il Dogma a le Scienze Positive, Milan, 1886, pp. 203 et\nseq.\n\n\nIn France, the learned Benedictine, Calmet, in his great works on the\nBible, accepted it as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century,\nbelieving the mastodon's bones exhibited by Mazurier to be those of King\nTeutobocus, and holding them valuable testimony to the existence of the\ngiants mentioned in Scripture and of the early inhabitants of the earth\noverwhelmed by the Flood.(155)\n\n\n     (155) For the steady adherence to this sacred theory, see Audiat, Vie de\nPalissy, p. 412, and Cantu, Histoire Universelle, vol. xv, p. 492. For\nCalmet, see his Dissertation sur les Geants, cited in Berger de Xivery,\nTraditions Teratologiques, p. 191.\n\n\nBut the greatest champion appeared in England. We have already seen how,\nnear the close of the seventeenth century, Thomas Burnet prepared the\nway in his Sacred Theory of the Earth by rejecting the discoveries of\nNewton, and showing how sin led to the breaking up of the \"foundations\nof the great deep,\" and we have also seen how Whiston, in his New Theory\nof the Earth, while yielding a little and accepting the discoveries of\nNewton, brought in a comet to aid in producing the Deluge; but far more\nimportant than these in permanent influence was John Woodward, professor\nat Gresham College, a leader in scientific thought at the University\nof Cambridge, and, as a patient collector of fossils and an earnest\ninvestigator of their meaning, deserving of the highest respect. In 1695\nhe published his Natural History of the Earth, and rendered one great\nservice to science, for he yielded another point, and thus destroyed the\nfoundations for the old theory of fossils. He showed that they were not\n\"sports of Nature,\" or \"models inserted by the Creator in the strata for\nsome inscrutable purpose,\" but that they were really remains of living\nbeings, as Xenophanes had asserted two thousand years before him. So\nfar, he rendered a great service both to science and religion; but, this\ndone, the text of the Old Testament narrative and the famous passage in\nSt. Peter's Epistle were too strong for him, and he, too, insisted that\nthe fossils were produced by the Deluge. Aided by his great authority,\nthe assault on the true scientific position was vigorous: Mazurier\nexhibited certain fossil remains of a mammoth discovered in France as\nbones of the giants mentioned in Scripture; Father Torrubia did the\nsame thing in Spain; Increase Mather sent to England similar remains\ndiscovered in America, with a like statement.\n\nFor the edification of the faithful, such \"bones of the giants mentioned\nin Scripture\" were hung up in public places. Jurieu saw some of\nthem thus suspended in one of the churches of Valence; and Henrion,\napparently under the stimulus thus given, drew up tables showing the\nsize of our antediluvian ancestors, giving the height of Adam as 123\nfeet 9 inches and that of Eve as 118 feet 9 inches and 9 lines.(156)\n\n\n     (156) See Cuvier, Recherches sur les Ossements fossiles, fourth edition,\nvol. ii, p. 56; also Geoffrey St.-Hilaire, cited by Berger de Xivery,\nTraditions Teratologiques, p. 190.\n\n\nBut the most brilliant service rendered to the theological theory came\nfrom another quarter for, in 1726, Scheuchzer, having discovered a large\nfossil lizard, exhibited it to the world as the \"human witness of the\nDeluge\":(157) this great discovery was hailed everywhere with joy,\nfor it seemed to prove not only that human beings were drowned at the\nDeluge, but that \"there were giants in those days.\" Cheered by the\napplause thus gained, he determined to make the theological position\nimpregnable. Mixing together various texts of Scripture with notions\nderived from the philosophy of Descartes and the speculations of\nWhiston, he developed the theory that \"the fountains of the great deep\"\nwere broken up by the direct physical action of the hand of God, which,\nbeing literally applied to the axis of the earth, suddenly stopped the\nearth's rotation, broke up \"the fountains of the great deep,\" spilled\nthe water therein contained, and produced the Deluge. But his service\nto sacred science did not end here, for he prepared an edition of the\nBible, in which magnificent engravings in great number illustrated his\nview and enforced it upon all readers. Of these engravings no less than\nthirty-four were devoted to the Deluge alone.(158)\n\n\n     (157) Homo diluvii testis.\n\n\n     (158) See Zoeckler, vol. ii, p. 172; also Scheuchzer, Physica Sacra,\nAugustae Vindel et Ulmae, 1732. For the ancient belief regarding\ngiants, see Leopoldi, Saggio. For accounts of the views of Mazaurier and\nScheuchzer, see Cuvier; also Buchner, Man in Past, Present, and Future,\nEnglish translation, pp. 235, 236. For Increase Mather's views, see\nPhilosophical Transactions, vol. xxiv, p. 85. As to similar fossils\nsent from New York to the Royal Society as remains of giants, see Weld,\nHistory of the Royal Society, vol. i, p. 421. For Father Torrubia and\nhis Gigantologia Espanola, see D'Archiac, Introduction a l'Etude de\nla Paleontologie Stratigraphique, Paris, 1864, p. 201. For admirable\nsummaries, see Lyell, Principles of Geology, London, 1867; D'Archiac,\nGeologie et Paleontologie, Paris, 1866; Pictet, Traite de Paleontologie,\nParis, 1853; Vezian, Prodrome de la Geologie, Paris, 1863; Haeckel,\nHistory of Creation, English translation, New York, 1876, chap. iii;\nand for recent progress, Prof. O. S. Marsh's Address on the History and\nMethods of Paleontology.\n\n\nIn the midst all this came an episode very comical but very instructive;\nfor it shows that the attempt to shape the deductions of science to meet\nthe exigencies of dogma may mislead heterodoxy as absurdly as orthodoxy.\n\nAbout the year 1760 news of the discovery of marine fossils in various\nelevated districts of Europe reached Voltaire. He, too, had a theologic\nsystem to support, though his system was opposed to that of the sacred\nbooks of the Hebrews; and, fearing that these new discoveries might be\nused to support the Mosaic accounts of the Deluge, all his wisdom and\nwit were compacted into arguments to prove that the fossil fishes were\nremains of fishes intended for food, but spoiled and thrown away\nby travellers; that the fossil shells were accidentally dropped by\ncrusaders and pilgrims returning from the Holy Land; and that the fossil\nbones found between Paris and Etampes were parts of a skeleton belonging\nto the cabinet of some ancient philosopher. Through chapter after\nchapter, Voltaire, obeying the supposed necessities of his theology,\nfought desperately the growing results of the geologic investigations of\nhis time.(159)\n\n\n     (159) See Voltaire, Dissertation sur les Changements arrives dans notre\nGlobe; also Voltaire, Les Singularities de la Nature, chap. xii; also\nJevons, Principles of Science, vol. ii, p. 328.\n\n\nBut far more prejudicial to Christianity was the continued effort on the\nother side to show that the fossils were caused by the Deluge of Noah.\n\nNo supposition was too violent to support this theory, which was\nconsidered vital to the Bible. By taking the mere husks and rinds of\nbiblical truth for truth itself, by taking sacred poetry as prose,\nand by giving a literal interpretation of it, the followers of Burnet,\nWhiston, and Woodward built up systems which bear to real geology much\nthe same relation that the Christian Topography of Cosmas bears to real\ngeography. In vain were exhibited the absolute geological, zoological,\nastronomical proofs that no universal deluge, or deluge covering any\nlarge part of the earth, had taken place within the last six thousand or\nsixty thousand years; in vain did so enlightened a churchman as Bishop\nClayton declare that the Deluge could not have extended beyond that\ndistrict where Noah lived before the Flood; in vain did others, like\nBishop Croft and Bishop Stillingfleet, and the nonconformist Matthew\nPoole, show that the Deluge might not have been and probably was not\nuniversal; in vain was it shown that, even if there had been a universal\ndeluge, the fossils were not produced by it: the only answers were the\ncitation of the text, \"And all the high mountains which were under the\nwhole heaven were covered,\" and, to clinch the matter, Worthington and\nmen like him insisted that any argument to show that fossils were not\nremains of animals drowned at the Deluge of Noah was \"infidelity.\" In\nEngland, France, and Germany, belief that the fossils were produced\nby the Deluge of Noah was widely insisted upon as part of that faith\nessential to salvation.(160)\n\n\n     (160) For a candid summary of the proofs from geology, astronomy,\nand zoology, that the Noachian Deluge was not universally or widely\nextended, see McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia of Biblical Theology\nand Ecclesiastical Literature, article Deluge. For general history, see\nLyell, D'Archiac, and Vezian. For special cases showing the bitterness\nof the conflict, see the Rev. Mr. Davis's Life of Rev. Dr. Pye Smith,\npassim. For a late account, see Prof. Huxley on The Lights of the Church\nand the Light of Science, in the Nineteenth Century for July, 1890.\n\n\nBut the steady work of science went on: not all the force of the\nChurch--not even the splendid engravings in Scheuchzer's Bible--could\nstop it, and the foundations of this theological theory began to crumble\naway. The process was, indeed, slow; it required a hundred and twenty\nyears for the searchers of God's truth, as revealed in Nature--such men\nas Hooke, Linnaeus, Whitehurst, Daubenton, Cuvier, and William Smith--to\npush their works under this fabric of error, and, by statements which\ncould not be resisted, to undermine it. As we arrive at the beginning of\nthe nineteenth century, science is becoming irresistible in this field.\nBlumenbach, Von Buch, and Schlotheim led the way, but most important on\nthe Continent was the work of Cuvier. In the early years of the present\ncentury his researches among fossils began to throw new light into the\nwhole subject of geology. He was, indeed, very conservative, and even\nmore wary and diplomatic; seeming, like Voltaire, to feel that \"among\nwolves one must howl a little.\" It was a time of reaction. Napoleon\nhad made peace with the Church, and to disturb that peace was akin to\ntreason. By large but vague concessions Cuvier kept the theologians\nsatisfied, while he undermined their strongest fortress. The danger was\ninstinctively felt by some of the champions of the Church, and typical\namong these was Chateaubriand, who in his best-known work, once so\ngreat, now so little--the Genius of Christianity--grappled with the\nquestions of creation by insisting upon a sort of general deception \"in\nthe beginning,\" under which everything was created by a sudden fiat,\nbut with appearances of pre-existence. His words are as follows: \"It\nwas part of the perfection and harmony of the nature which was displayed\nbefore men's eyes that the deserted nests of last year's birds should be\nseen on the trees, and that the seashore should be covered with shells\nwhich had been the abode of fish, and yet the world was quite new, and\nnests and shells had never been inhabited.\"(161) But the real victory\nwas with Brongniart, who, about 1820, gave forth his work on fossil\nplants, and thus built a barrier against which the enemies of science\nraged in vain.(162)\n\n\n     (161) Genie du Christianisme, chap.v, pp. 1-14, cited by Reusch, vol. i,\np. 250.\n\n\n     (162) For admirable sketches of Brongniart and other paleobotanists, see\nWard, as above.\n\n\nStill the struggle was not ended, and, a few years later, a forlorn hope\nwas led in England by Granville Penn.\n\nHis fundamental thesis was that \"our globe has undergone only two\nrevolutions, the Creation and the Deluge, and both by the immediate fiat\nof the Almighty\"; he insisted that the Creation took place in exactly\nsix days of ordinary time, each made up of \"the evening and the\nmorning\"; and he ended with a piece of that peculiar presumption so\nfamiliar to the world, by calling on Cuvier and all other geologists to\n\"ask for the old paths and walk therein until they shall simplify their\nsystem and reduce their numerous revolutions to the two events or epochs\nonly--the six days of Creation and the Deluge.\"(163) The geologists\nshowed no disposition to yield to this peremptory summons; on the\ncontrary, the President of the British Geological Society, and even so\neminent a churchman and geologist as Dean Buckland, soon acknowledged\nthat facts obliged them to give up the theory that the fossils of the\ncoal measures were deposited at the Deluge of Noah, and to deny that the\nDeluge was universal.\n\n\n     (163) See the Works of Granville Penn, vol. ii, p. 273.\n\n\nThe defection of Buckland was especially felt by the orthodox party. His\nability, honesty, and loyalty to his profession, as well as his position\nas Canon of Christ Church and Professor of Geology at Oxford, gave him\ngreat authority, which he exerted to the utmost in soothing his brother\necclesiastics. In his inaugural lecture he had laboured to show that\ngeology confirmed the accounts of Creation and the Flood as given\nin Genesis, and in 1823, after his cave explorations had revealed\noverwhelming evidences of the vast antiquity of the earth, he had still\nclung to the Flood theory in his Reliquiae Diluvianae.\n\nThis had not, indeed, fully satisfied the anti-scientific party, but as\na rule their attacks upon him took the form not so much of abuse as of\nhumorous disparagement. An epigram by Shuttleworth, afterward Bishop\nof Chichester, in imitation of Pope's famous lines upon Newton, ran as\nfollows:\n\n\n\"Some doubts were once expressed about the Flood: Buckland arose, and\nall was clear as mud.\"\n\n\nOn his leaving Oxford for a journey to southern Europe, Dean Gaisford\nwas heard to exclaim: \"Well, Buckland is gone to Italy; so, thank God,\nwe shall have no more of this geology!\"\n\nStill there was some comfort as long as Buckland held to the Deluge\ntheory; but, on his surrender, the combat deepened: instead of epigrams\nand caricatures came bitter attacks, and from the pulpit and press came\nshowers of missiles. The worst of these were hurled at Lyell. As we have\nseen, he had published in 1830 his Principles of Geology. Nothing\ncould have been more cautious. It simply gave an account of the main\ndiscoveries up to that time, drawing the necessary inferences with plain\nyet convincing logic, and it remains to this day one of those works\nin which the Anglo-Saxon race may most justly take pride,--one of the\nland-marks in the advance of human thought.\n\nBut its tendency was inevitably at variance with the Chaldean and other\nancient myths and legends regarding the Creation and Deluge which\nthe Hebrews had received from the older civilizations among their\nneighbours, and had incorporated into the sacred books which they\ntransmitted to the modern world; it was therefore extensively \"refuted.\"\n\nTheologians and men of science influenced by them insisted that his\nminimizing of geological changes, and his laying stress on the gradual\naction of natural causes still in force, endangered the sacred record of\nCreation and left no place for miraculous intervention; and when it\nwas found that he had entirely cast aside their cherished idea that the\ngreat geological changes of the earth's surface and the multitude of\nfossil remains were due to the Deluge of Noah, and had shown that a far\nlonger time was demanded for Creation than any which could possibly\nbe deduced from the Old Testament genealogies and chronicles, orthodox\nindignation burst forth violently; eminent dignitaries of the Church\nattacked him without mercy and for a time he was under social ostracism.\n\nAs this availed little, an effort was made on the scientific side to\ncrush him beneath the weighty authority of Cuvier; but the futility of\nthis effort was evident when it was found that thinking men would no\nlonger listen to Cuvier and persisted in listening to Lyell. The great\northodox text-book, Cuvier's Theory of the Earth, became at once so\ndiscredited in the estimation of men of science that no new edition\nof it was called for, while Lyell's work speedily ran through twelve\neditions and remained a firm basis of modern thought.(164)\n\n\n     (164) For Buckland and the various forms of attack upon him, see Gordon,\nLife of Buckland, especially pp. 10, 26, 136. For the attack on Lyell\nand his book, see Huxley, The Lights of the Church and the Light of\nScience.\n\n\nAs typical of his more moderate opponents we may take Fairholme, who in\n1837 published his Mosaic Deluge, and argued that no early convulsions\nof the earth, such as those supposed by geologists, could have taken\nplace, because there could have been no deluge \"before moral guilt could\npossibly have been incurred\"--that is to say, before the creation of\nmankind. In touching terms he bewailed the defection of the President of\nthe Geological Society and Dean Buckland--protesting against geologists\nwho \"persist in closing their eyes upon the solemn declarations of the\nAlmighty\"\n\nStill the geologists continued to seek truth: the germs planted\nespecially by William Smith, \"the Father of English Geology\" were\ndeveloped by a noble succession of investigators, and the victory was\nsure. Meanwhile those theologians who felt that denunciation of\nscience as \"godless\" could accomplish little, laboured upon schemes for\nreconciling geology with Genesis. Some of these show amazing ingenuity,\nbut an eminent religious authority, going over them with great\nthoroughness, has well characterized them as \"daring and fanciful.\" Such\nattempts have been variously classified, but the fact regarding them\nall is that each mixes up more or less of science with more or less of\nScripture, and produces a result more or less absurd. Though a few men\nhere and there have continued these exercises, the capitulation of the\nparty which set the literal account of the Deluge of Noah against the\nfacts revealed by geology was at last clearly made.(165)\n\n\n     (165) For Fairholme, see his Mosaic Deluge, London, 1837, p. 358. For a\nvery just characterization of various schemes of \"reconciliation,\" see\nShields, The Final Philosophy, p. 340.\n\n\nOne of the first evidences of the completeness of this surrender has\nbeen so well related by the eminent physiologist, Dr. W. B. Carpenter,\nthat it may best be given in his own words: \"You are familiar with a\nbook of considerable value, Dr. W. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible. I\nhappened to know the influences under which that dictionary was\nframed. The idea of the publisher and of the editor was to give as much\nscholarship and such results of modern criticism as should be compatible\nwith a very judicious conservatism. There was to be no objection\nto geology, but the universality of the Deluge was to be strictly\nmaintained. The editor committed the article Deluge to a man of very\nconsiderable ability, but when the article came to him he found that\nit was so excessively heretical that he could not venture to put it in.\nThere was not time for a second article under that head, and if you look\nin that dictionary you will find under the word Deluge a reference to\nFlood. Before Flood came, a second article had been commissioned from a\nsource that was believed safely conservative; but when the article came\nin it was found to be worse than the first. A third article was then\ncommissioned, and care was taken to secure its 'safety.' If you look\nfor the word Flood in the dictionary, you will find a reference to Noah.\nUnder that name you will find an article written by a distinguished\nprofessor of Cambridge, of which I remember that Bishop Colenso said\nto me at the time, 'In a very guarded way the writer concedes the whole\nthing.' You will see by this under what trammels scientific thought has\nlaboured in this department of inquiry.\"(166)\n\n\n     (166) See Official Report of the National Conference of Unitarian and\nother Christian Churches held at Saratoga, 1882, p. 97.\n\n\nA similar surrender was seen when from a new edition of Horne's\nIntroduction to the Scriptures, the standard textbook of orthodoxy, its\naccustomed use of fossils to prove the universality of the Deluge was\nquietly dropped.(167)\n\n\n     (167) This was about 1856; see Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 329.\n\n\nA like capitulation in the United States was foreshadowed in 1841, when\nan eminent Professor of Biblical Literature and interpretation in the\nmost important theological seminary of the Protestant Episcopal Church,\nDr. Samuel Turner, showed his Christian faith and courage by virtually\naccepting the new view; and the old contention was utterly cast away\nby the thinking men of another great religious body when, at a later\nperiod, two divines among the most eminent for piety and learning in\nthe Methodist Episcopal Church inserted in the Biblical Cyclopaedia,\npublished under their supervision, a candid summary of the proofs\nfrom geology, astronomy, and zoology that the Deluge of Noah was not\nuniversal, or even widely extended, and this without protest from any\nman of note in any branch of the American Church.(168)\n\n\n     (168) For Dr. Turner, see his Companion to the Book of Genesis, London\nand New York, 1841, pp. 216-219. For McClintock and Strong, see their\nCyclopaedia of Biblical Knowledge, etc., article Deluge. For similar\nsurrenders of the Deluge in various other religious encyclopedias and\ncommentaries, see Huxley, Essays on controverted questions, chap. xiii.\n\n\nThe time when the struggle was relinquished by enlightened theologians\nof the Roman Catholic Church may be fixed at about 1862, when Reusch,\nProfessor of Theology at Bonn, in his work on The Bible and Nature,\ncast off the old diluvial theory and all its supporters, accepting the\nconclusions of science.(169)\n\n\n     (169) See Reusch, Bibel und Natur, chap. xxi.\n\n\nBut, though the sacred theory with the Deluge of Noah as a universal\nsolvent for geological difficulties was evidently dying, there still\nremained in various quarters a touching fidelity to it. In Roman\nCatholic countries the old theory was widely though quietly cherished,\nand taught from the religious press, the pulpit, and the theological\nprofessor's chair. Pope Pius IX was doubtless in sympathy with this\nfeeling when, about 1850, he forbade the scientific congress of Italy to\nmeet at Bologna.(170)\n\n\n     (170) See Whiteside, Italy in the Nineteenth Century, vol. iii, chap.\nxiv.\n\n\nIn 1856 Father Debreyne congratulated the theologians of France on their\nadmirable attitude: \"Instinctively,\" he says, \"they still insist upon\nderiving the fossils from Noah's Flood.\"(171) In 1875 the Abbe Choyer\npublished at Paris and Angers a text-book widely approved by Church\nauthorities, in which he took similar ground; and in 1877 the Jesuit\nfather Bosizio published at Mayence a treatise on Geology and the\nDeluge, endeavouring to hold the world to the old solution of the\nproblem, allowing, indeed, that the \"days\" of Creation were long\nperiods, but making atonement for this concession by sneers at\nDarwin.(172)\n\n\n     (171) See Zoeckler, vol. ii, p. 472.\n\n\n     (172) See Zoeckler, vol. ii, p. 478, and Bosizio, Geologie und die\nSundfluth, Mayence, 1877, preface, p. xiv.\n\n\nIn the Russo-Greek Church, in 1869, Archbishop Macarius, of Lithuania,\nurged the necessity of believing that Creation in six days of ordinary\ntime and the Deluge of Noah are the only causes of all that geology\nseeks to explain; and, as late as 1876, another eminent theologian of\nthe same Church went even farther, and refused to allow the faithful to\nbelieve that any change had taken place since \"the beginning\" mentioned\nin Genesis, when the strata of the earth were laid, tilted, and twisted,\nand the fossils scattered among them by the hand of the Almighty during\nsix ordinary days.(173)\n\n\n     (173) See Zoeckler, vol. ii, p. 472, 571, and elsewhere; also citations\nin Reusch and Shields.\n\n\nIn the Lutheran branch of the Protestant Church we also find echoes\nof the old belief. Keil, eminent in scriptural interpretation at the\nUniversity of Dorpat, gave forth in 1860 a treatise insisting that\ngeology is rendered futile and its explanations vain by two great facts:\nthe Curse which drove Adam and Eve out of Eden, and the Flood that\ndestroyed all living things save Noah, his family, and the animals in\nthe ark. In 1867, Phillippi, and in 1869, Dieterich, both theologians\nof eminence, took virtually the same ground in Germany, the latter\nattempting to beat back the scientific hosts with a phrase apparently\npithy, but really hollow--the declaration that \"modern geology observes\nwhat is, but has no right to judge concerning the beginning of things.\"\nAs late as 1876, Zugler took a similar view, and a multitude of lesser\nlights, through pulpit and press, brought these antiscientific doctrines\nto bear upon the people at large--the only effect being to arouse grave\ndoubts regarding Christianity among thoughtful men, and especially among\nyoung men, who naturally distrusted a cause using such weapons.\n\nFor just at this time the traditional view of the Deluge received its\ndeath-blow, and in a manner entirely unexpected. By the investigations\nof George Smith among the Assyrian tablets of the British Museum, in\n1872, and by his discoveries just afterward in Assyria, it was put\nbeyond a reasonable doubt that a great mass of accounts in Genesis\nare simply adaptations of earlier and especially of Chaldean myths and\nlegends. While this proved to be the fact as regards the accounts of\nCreation and the fall of man, it was seen to be most strikingly so as\nregards the Deluge. The eleventh of the twelve tablets, on which the\nmost important of these inscriptions was found, was almost wholly\npreserved, and it revealed in this legend, dating from a time far\nearlier than that of Moses, such features peculiar to the childhood of\nthe world as the building of the great ship or ark to escape the flood,\nthe careful caulking of its seams, the saving of a man beloved of\nHeaven, his selecting and taking with him into the vessel animals of all\nsorts in couples, the impressive final closing of the door, the sending\nforth different birds as the flood abated, the offering of sacrifices\nwhen the flood had subsided, the joy of the Divine Being who had caused\nthe flood as the odour of the sacrifice reached his nostrils; while\nthroughout all was shown that partiality for the Chaldean sacred number\nseven which appears so constantly in the Genesis legends and throughout\nthe Hebrew sacred books.\n\nOther devoted scholars followed in the paths thus opened--Sayce in\nEngland, Lenormant in France, Schrader in Germany--with the result that\nthe Hebrew account of the Deluge, to which for ages theologians had\nobliged all geological research to conform, was quietly relegated,\neven by most eminent Christian scholars, to the realm of myth and\nlegend.(174)\n\n\n     (174) For George Smith, see his Chaldean Account of Genesis, New York,\n1876, especially pp. 36, 263, 286; also his special work on the subject.\nSee also Lenormant, Les Origins de l'Histoire, Paris, 1880, chap. viii.\nFor Schrader, see his The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament,\nWhitehouse's translation, London, 1885, vol. i, pp. 47-49 and 58-60, and\nelsewhere.\n\n\nSundry feeble attempts to break the force of this discovery, and an\nevidently widespread fear to have it known, have certainly impaired not\na little the legitimate influence of the Christian clergy.\n\nAnd yet this adoption of Chaldean myths into the Hebrew Scriptures\nfurnishes one of the strongest arguments for the value of our Bible as\na record of the upward growth of man; for, while the Chaldean legend\nprimarily ascribes the Deluge to the mere arbitrary caprice of one among\nmany gods (Bel), the Hebrew development of the legend ascribes it to\nthe justice, the righteousness, of the Supreme God; thus showing the\nevolution of a higher and nobler sentiment which demanded a moral cause\nadequate to justify such a catastrophe.\n\nUnfortunately, thus far, save in a few of the broader and nobler minds\namong the clergy, the policy of ignoring such new revelations has\nprevailed, and the results of this policy, both in Roman Catholic and in\nProtestant countries, are not far to seek. What the condition of thought\nis among the middle classes of France and Italy needs not to be stated\nhere. In Germany, as a typical fact, it may be mentioned that there was\nin the year 1881 church accommodation in the city of Berlin for but two\nper cent of the population, and that even this accommodation was more\nthan was needed. This fact is not due to the want of a deep religious\nspirit among the North Germans: no one who has lived among them can\ndoubt the existence of such a spirit; but it is due mainly to the fact\nthat, while the simple results of scientific investigation have filtered\ndown among the people at large, the dominant party in the Lutheran\nChurch has steadily refused to recognise this fact, and has persisted in\nimposing on Scripture the fetters of literal and dogmatic interpretation\nwhich Germany has largely outgrown. A similar danger threatens every\nother country in which the clergy pursue a similar policy. No thinking\nman, whatever may be his religious views, can fail to regret this. A\nthoughtful, reverent, enlightened clergy is a great blessing to any\ncountry, and anything which undermines their legitimate work of leading\nmen out of the worship of material things to the consideration of that\nwhich is highest is a vast misfortune.(175)\n\n\n     (175) For the foregoing statements regarding Germany the writer relies\non his personal observation as a student at the University of Berlin in\n1856, as a traveller at various periods afterward, and as Minister of\nthe United States in 1879, 1880, and 1881.\n\n\n\n\nIV. FINAL EFFORTS AT COMPROMISE.--THE VICTORY OF SCIENCE COMPLETE.\n\n\nBefore concluding, it may be instructive to note a few especially\ndesperate attempts at truces or compromises, such as always appear when\nthe victory of any science has become absolutely sure. Typical among\nthe earliest of these may be mentioned the effort of Carl von Raumer in\n1819. With much pretension to scientific knowledge, but with aspirations\nbounded by the limits of Prussian orthodoxy, he made a laboured attempt\nto produce a statement which, by its vagueness, haziness, and \"depth,\"\nshould obscure the real questions at issue. This statement appeared in\nthe shape of an argument, used by Bertrand and others in the previous\ncentury, to prove that fossil remains of plants in the coal measures\nhad never existed as living plants, but had been simply a \"result of the\ndevelopment of imperfect plant embryos\"; and the same misty theory was\nsuggested to explain the existence of fossil animals without supposing\nthe epochs and changes required by geological science.\n\nIn 1837 Wagner sought to uphold this explanation; but it was so clearly\na mere hollow phrase, unable to bear the weight of the facts to be\naccounted for, that it was soon given up.\n\nSimilar attempts were made throughout Europe, the most noteworthy\nappearing in England. In 1853 was issued an anonymous work having as its\ntitle A Brief and Complete Refutation of the Anti-Scriptural Theory of\nGeologists: the author having revived an old idea, and put a spark\nof life into it--this idea being that \"all the organisms found in the\ndepths of the earth were made on the first of the six creative days, as\nmodels for the plants and animals to be created on the third, fifth, and\nsixth days.\"(176)\n\n\n     (176) See Zoeckler, vol. ii, p. 475.\n\n\nBut while these attempts to preserve the old theory as to fossil remains\nof lower animals were thus pressed, there appeared upon the geological\nfield a new scientific column far more terrible to the old doctrines\nthan any which had been seen previously.\n\nFor, just at the close of the first quarter of the nineteenth century,\ngeologists began to examine the caves and beds of drift in various\nparts of the world; and within a few years from that time a series\nof discoveries began in France, in Belgium, in England, in Brazil, in\nSicily, in India, in Egypt, and in America, which established the\nfact that a period of time much greater than any which had before been\nthought of had elapsed since the first human occupation of the earth.\nThe chronologies of Archbishop Usher, Petavius, Bossuet, and the other\ngreat authorities on which theology had securely leaned, were found\nworthless. It was clearly seen that, no matter how well based upon the\nOld Testament genealogies and lives of the patriarchs, all these systems\nmust go for nothing. The most conservative geologists were gradually\nobliged to admit that man had been upon the earth not merely six\nthousand, or sixty thousand, or one hundred and sixty thousand years.\nAnd when, in 1863, Sir Charles Lyell, in his book on The Antiquity of\nMan, retracted solemnly his earlier view--yielding with a reluctance\nalmost pathetic, but with a thoroughness absolutely convincing--the last\nstronghold of orthodoxy in this field fell.(177)\n\n\n     (177) See Prof. Marsh's address as President of the Society for the\nAdvancement of Science, in 1879; and for a development of the matter,\nsee the chapters on The Antiquity of Man and Egyptology and the Fall of\nMan and Anthropology, in this work.\n\n\nThe supporters of a theory based upon the letter of Scripture, who\nhad so long taken the offensive, were now obliged to fight upon the\ndefensive and at fearful odds. Various lines of defence were taken;\nbut perhaps the most pathetic effort was that made in the year 1857,\nin England, by Gosse. As a naturalist he had rendered great services to\nzoological science, but he now concentrated his energies upon one last\neffort to save the literal interpretation of Genesis and the theological\nstructure built upon it. In his work entitled Omphalos he developed the\ntheory previously urged by Granville Penn, and asserted a new principle\ncalled \"prochronism.\" In accordance with this, all things were created\nby the Almighty hand literally within the six days, each made up of \"the\nevening and the morning,\" and each great branch of creation was brought\ninto existence in an instant. Accepting a declaration of Dr. Ure, that\n\"neither reason nor revelation will justify us in extending the origin\nof the material system beyond six thousand years from our own days,\"\nGosse held that all the evidences of convulsive changes and long epochs\nin strata, rocks, minerals, and fossils are simply \"APPEARANCES\"--only\nthat and nothing more. Among these mere \"appearances,\" all created\nsimultaneously, were the glacial furrows and scratches on rocks, the\nmarks of retreat on rocky masses, as at Niagara, the tilted and twisted\nstrata, the piles of lava from extinct volcanoes, the fossils of every\nsort in every part of the earth, the foot-tracks of birds and reptiles,\nthe half-digested remains of weaker animals found in the fossilized\nbodies of the stronger, the marks of hyenas' teeth on fossilized bones\nfound in various caves, and even the skeleton of the Siberian mammoth\nat St. Petersburg with lumps of flesh bearing the marks of wolves'\nteeth--all these, with all gaps and imperfections, he urged mankind\nto believe came into being in an instant. The preface of the work\nis especially touching, and it ends with the prayer that science and\nScripture may be reconciled by his theory, and \"that the God of truth\nwill deign so to use it, and if he do, to him be all the glory.\"(177) At\nthe close of the whole book Gosse declared: \"The field is left clear and\nundisputed for the one witness on the opposite side, whose testimony is\nas follows: 'In six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all\nthat in them is.'\" This quotation he placed in capital letters, as the\nfinal refutation of all that the science of geology had built.\n\n\n     (177) See Gosse, Omphalos, London, 1857, p. 5, and passim; and for a\npassage giving the keynote of the whole, with a most farcical note on\ncoprolites, see pp. 353, 354.\n\n\nIn other parts of Europe desperate attempts were made even later to\nsave the letter of our sacred books by the revival of a theory in some\nrespects more striking. To shape this theory to recent needs, vague\nreminiscences of a text in Job regarding fire beneath the earth, and\nvague conceptions of speculations made by Humboldt and Laplace, were\nmingled with Jewish tradition. Out of the mixture thus obtained Schubert\ndeveloped the idea that the Satanic \"principalities and powers\" formerly\ninhabiting our universe plunged it into the chaos from which it was\nnewly created by a process accurately described in Genesis. Rougemont\nmade the earth one of the \"morning stars\" of Job, reduced to chaos by\nLucifer and his followers, and thence developed in accordance with the\nnebular hypothesis. Kurtz evolved from this theory an opinion that the\ngeological disturbances were caused by the opposition of the devil to\nthe rescue of our universe from chaos by the Almighty. Delitzsch put a\nsimilar idea into a more scholastic jargon; but most desperate of all\nwere the statements of Dr. Anton Westermeyer, of Munich, in The Old\nTestament vindicated from Modern Infidel Objections. The following\npassage will serve to show his ideas: \"By the fructifying brooding of\nthe Divine Spirit on the waters of the deep, creative forces began to\nstir; the devils who inhabited the primeval darkness and considered it\ntheir own abode saw that they were to be driven from their possessions,\nor at least that their place of habitation was to be contracted, and\nthey therefore tried to frustrate God's plan of creation and exert all\nthat remained to them of might and power to hinder or at least to mar\nthe new creation.\" So came into being \"the horrible and destructive\nmonsters, these caricatures and distortions of creation,\" of which\nwe have fossil remains. Dr. Westermeyer goes on to insist that \"whole\ngenerations called into existence by God succumbed to the corruption of\nthe devil, and for that reason had to be destroyed\"; and that \"in the\nwork of the six days God caused the devil to feel his power in all\nearnest, and made Satan's enterprise appear miserable and vain.\"(178)\n\n\n     (178) See Shields's Final Philosophy, pp. 340 et seq., and Reusch's\nNature and the Bible (English translation, 1886), vol. i, pp. 318-320.\n\n\nSuch was the last important assault upon the strongholds of geological\nscience in Germany; and, in view of this and others of the same kind, it\nis little to be wondered at that when, in 1870, Johann Silberschlag made\nan attempt to again base geology upon the Deluge of Noah, he found such\ndifficulties that, in a touching passage, he expressed a desire to get\nback to the theory that fossils were \"sports of Nature.\"(179)\n\n\n     (179) See Reusch, vol. i, p. 264.\n\n\nBut the most noted among efforts to keep geology well within the\nletter of Scripture is of still more recent date. In the year 1885 Mr.\nGladstone found time, amid all his labours and cares as the greatest\nparliamentary leader in England, to take the field in the struggle for\nthe letter of Genesis against geology.\n\nOn the face of it his effort seemed Quixotic, for he confessed at\nthe outset that in science he was \"utterly destitute of that kind of\nknowledge which carries authority,\" and his argument soon showed that\nthis confession was entirely true.\n\nBut he had some other qualities of which much might be expected: great\nskill in phrase-making, great shrewdness in adapting the meanings of\nsingle words to conflicting necessities in discussion, wonderful power\nin erecting showy structures of argument upon the smallest basis\nof fact, and a facility almost preternatural in \"explaining away\"\ntroublesome realities. So striking was his power in this last respect,\nthat a humorous London chronicler once advised a bigamist, as his only\nhope, to induce Mr. Gladstone to explain away one of his wives.\n\nAt the basis of this theologico-geological structure Mr. Gladstone\nplaced what he found in the text of Genesis: \"A grand fourfold division\"\nof animated Nature \"set forth in an orderly succession of times.\" And he\narranged this order and succession of creation as follows: \"First,\nthe water population; secondly, the air population; thirdly, the land\npopulation of animals; fourthly, the land population consummated in\nman.\"\n\nHis next step was to slide in upon this basis the apparently harmless\nproposition that this division and sequence \"is understood to have been\nso affirmed in our time by natural science that it may be taken as a\ndemonstrated conclusion and established fact.\"\n\nFinally, upon these foundations he proceeded to build an argument out\nof the coincidences thus secured between the record in the Hebrew sacred\nbooks and the truths revealed by science as regards this order and\nsequence, and he easily arrived at the desired conclusion with which he\ncrowned the whole structure, namely, as regards the writer of Genesis,\nthat \"his knowledge was divine.\"(180)\n\n\n     (180) See Mr. Gladstone's Dawn of Creation and Worship, a reply to Dr.\nReville, in the Nineteenth Century for November, 1885.\n\n\nSuch was the skeleton of the structure; it was abundantly decorated with\nthe rhetoric in which Mr. Gladstone is so skilful an artificer, and\nit towered above \"the average man\" as a structure beautiful and\ninvincible--like some Chinese fortress in the nineteenth century, faced\nwith porcelain and defended with crossbows.\n\nIts strength was soon seen to be unreal. In an essay admirable in its\ntemper, overwhelming in its facts, and absolutely convincing in its\nargument, Prof. Huxley, late President of the Royal Society, and\ndoubtless the most eminent contemporary authority on the scientific\nquestions concerned, took up the matter.\n\nMr. Gladstone's first proposition, that the sacred writings give us a\ngreat \"fourfold division\" created \"in an orderly succession of times,\"\nProf. Huxley did not presume to gainsay.\n\nAs to Mr. Gladstone's second proposition, that \"this great fourfold\ndivision... created in an orderly succession of times... has been so\naffirmed in our own time by natural science that it may be taken as a\ndemonstrated conclusion and established fact,\" Prof. Huxley showed\nthat, as a matter of fact, no such \"fourfold division\" and \"orderly\nsuccession\" exist; that, so far from establishing Mr. Gladstone's\nassumption that the population of water, air, and land followed each\nother in the order given, \"all the evidence we possess goes to prove\nthat they did not\"; that the distribution of fossils through the various\nstrata proves that some land animals originated before sea animals;\nthat there has been a mixing of sea, land, and air \"population\" utterly\ndestructive to the \"great fourfold division\" and to the creation \"in an\norderly succession of times\"; that, so far is the view presented in the\nsacred text, as stated by Mr. Gladstone, from having been \"so\naffirmed in our own time by natural science, that it may be taken as\na demonstrated conclusion and established fact\" that Mr. Gladstone's\nassertion is \"directly contradictory to facts known to every one who is\nacquainted with the elements of natural science\"; that Mr. Gladstone's\nonly geological authority, Cuvier, had died more than fifty years\nbefore, when geological science was in its infancy (and he might have\nadded, when it was necessary to make every possible concession to\nthe Church); and, finally, he challenged Mr. Gladstone to produce any\ncontemporary authority in geological science who would support his\nso-called scriptural view. And when, in a rejoinder, Mr. Gladstone\nattempted to support his view on the authority of Prof. Dana, Prof.\nHuxley had no difficulty in showing from Prof. Dana's works that Mr.\nGladstone's inference was utterly unfounded. But, while the fabric\nreared by Mr. Gladstone had been thus undermined by Huxley on the\nscientific side, another opponent began an attack from the biblical\nside. The Rev. Canon Driver, professor at Mr. Gladstone's own\nUniversity of Oxford, took up the question in the light of scriptural\ninterpretation. In regard to the comparative table drawn up by Sir J. W.\nDawson, showing the supposed correspondence between the scriptural and\nthe geological order of creation, Canon Driver said: \"The two series\nare evidently at variance. The geological record contains no evidence\nof clearly defined periods corresponding to the 'days' of Genesis. In\nGenesis, vegetation is complete two days before animal life appears.\nGeology shows that they appear simultaneously--even if animal life\ndoes not appear first. In Genesis, birds appear together with aquatic\ncreatures, and precede all land animals; according to the evidence of\ngeology, birds are unknown till a period much later than that at which\naquatic creatures (including fishes and amphibia) abound, and they are\npreceded by numerous species of land animals--in particular, by insects\nand other 'creeping things.'\" Of the Mosaic account of the existence\nof vegetation before the creation of the sun, Canon Driver said, \"No\nreconciliation of this representation with the data of science has yet\nbeen found\"; and again: \"From all that has been said, however reluctant\nwe may be to make the admission, only one conclusion seems possible.\nRead without prejudice or bias, the narrative of Genesis i, creates an\nimpression at variance with the facts revealed by science.\" The\neminent professor ends by saying that the efforts at reconciliation are\n\"different modes of obliterating the characteristic features of Genesis,\nand of reading into it a view which it does not express.\"\n\nThus fell Mr. Gladstone's fabric of coincidences between the \"great\nfourfold division\" in Genesis and the facts ascertained by geology.\nProf. Huxley had shattered the scientific parts of the structure, Prof.\nDriver had removed its biblical foundations, and the last great fortress\nof the opponents of unfettered scientific investigation was in ruins.\n\nIn opposition to all such attempts we may put a noble utterance by\na clergyman who has probably done more to save what is essential in\nChristianity among English-speaking people than any other ecclesiastic\nof his time. The late Dean of Westminster, Dr. Arthur Stanley, was\nwidely known and beloved on both continents. In his memorial sermon\nafter the funeral of Sir Charles Lyell he said: \"It is now clear to\ndiligent students of the Bible that the first and second chapters of\nGenesis contain two narratives of the creation side by side, differing\nfrom each other in almost every particular of time and place and order.\nIt is well known that, when the science of geology first arose, it was\ninvolved in endless schemes of attempted reconciliation with the\nletter of Scripture. There were, there are perhaps still, two modes of\nreconciliation of Scripture and science, which have been each in their\nday attempted, AND EACH HAS TOTALLY AND DESERVEDLY FAILED. One is the\nendeavour to wrest the words of the Bible from their natural meaning and\nFORCE IT TO SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE.\" And again, speaking of the\nearliest known example, which was the interpolation of the word \"not\"\nin Leviticus xi, 6, he continues: \"This is the earliest instance of THE\nFALSIFICATION OF SCRIPTURE TO MEET THE DEMANDS OF SCIENCE; and it has\nbeen followed in later times by the various efforts which have been\nmade to twist the earlier chapters of the book of Genesis into APPARENT\nagreement with the last results of geology--representing days not to be\ndays, morning and evening not to be morning and evening, the Deluge not\nto be the Deluge, and the ark not to be the ark.\"\n\nAfter a statement like this we may fitly ask, Which is the more likely\nto strengthen Christianity for its work in the twentieth century which\nwe are now about to enter--a large, manly, honest, fearless utterance\nlike this of Arthur Stanley, or hair-splitting sophistries, bearing\nin their every line the germs of failure, like those attempted by Mr.\nGladstone?\n\nThe world is finding that the scientific revelation of creation is ever\nmore and more in accordance with worthy conceptions of that great Power\nworking in and through the universe. More and more it is seen that\ninspiration has never ceased, and that its prophets and priests are not\nthose who work to fit the letter of its older literature to the needs\nof dogmas and sects, but those, above all others, who patiently,\nfearlessly, and reverently devote themselves to the search for truth as\ntruth, in the faith that there is a Power in the universe wise enough\nto make truth-seeking safe and good enough to make truth-telling\nuseful.(181)\n\n\n\n     (181) For the Huxley-Gladstone controversy, see The Nineteenth Century\nfor 1885-'86. For Canon Driver, see his article, The Cosmogony of\nGenesis, in The Expositor for January, 1886.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.  THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN EGYPTOLOGY, AND ASSYRIOLOGY.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE SACRED CHRONOLOGY.\n\n\nIn the great ranges of investigation which bear most directly upon the\norigin of man, there are two in which Science within the last few years\nhas gained final victories. The significance of these in changing, and\nultimately in reversing, one of the greatest currents of theological\nthought, can hardly be overestimated; not even the tide set in motion by\nCusa, Copernicus, and Galileo was more powerful to bring in a new epoch\nof belief.\n\nThe first of these conquests relates to the antiquity of man on the\nearth.\n\nThe fathers of the early Christian Church, receiving all parts of our\nsacred books as equally inspired, laid little, if any, less stress\non the myths, legends, genealogies, and tribal, family, and personal\ntraditions contained in the Old and the New Testaments, than upon the\nmost powerful appeals, the most instructive apologues, and the most\nlofty poems of prophets, psalmists, and apostles. As to the age of our\nplanet and the life of man upon it, they found in the Bible a carefully\nrecorded series of periods, extending from Adam to the building of the\nTemple at Jerusalem, the length of each period being explicitly given.\n\nThus they had a biblical chronology--full, consecutive, and\ndefinite--extending from the first man created to an event of known\ndate well within ascertained profane history; as a result, the early\nChristian commentators arrived at conclusions varying somewhat, but in\nthe main agreeing. Some, like Origen, Eusebius, Lactantius, Clement\nof Alexandria, and the great fathers generally of the first three\ncenturies, dwelling especially upon the Septuagint version of the\nScriptures, thought that man's creation took place about six thousand\nyears before the Christian era. Strong confirmation of this view was\nfound in a simple piece of purely theological reasoning: for, just as\nthe seven candlesticks of the Apocalypse were long held to prove the\nexistence of seven heavenly bodies revolving about the earth, so it was\nfelt that the six days of creation prefigured six thousand years during\nwhich the earth in its first form was to endure; and that, as the first\nAdam came on the sixth day, Christ, the second Adam, had come at the\nsixth millennial period. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in the second\ncentury clinched this argument with the text, \"One day is with the Lord\nas a thousand years.\"\n\nOn the other hand, Eusebius and St. Jerome, dwelling more especially\nupon the Hebrew text, which we are brought up to revere, thought\nthat man's origin took place at a somewhat shorter period before the\nChristian era; and St. Jerome's overwhelming authority made this the\ndominant view throughout western Europe during fifteen centuries.\n\nThe simplicity of these great fathers as regards chronology is\nespecially reflected from the tables of Eusebius. In these, Moses,\nJoshua, and Bacchus,--Deborah, Orpheus, and the Amazons,--Abimelech,\nthe Sphinx, and Oedipus, appear together as personages equally real, and\ntheir positions in chronology equally ascertained.\n\nAt times great bitterness was aroused between those holding the longer\nand those holding the shorter chronology, but after all the difference\nbetween them, as we now see, was trivial; and it may be broadly stated\nthat in the early Church, \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" it was held\nas certain, upon the absolute warrant of Scripture, that man was created\nfrom four to six thousand years before the Christian era.\n\nTo doubt this, and even much less than this, was to risk damnation.\nSt. Augustine insisted that belief in the antipodes and in the longer\nduration of the earth than six thousand years were deadly heresies,\nequally hostile to Scripture. Philastrius, the friend of St. Ambrose and\nSt. Augustine, whose fearful catalogue of heresies served as a guide\nto intolerance throughout the Middle Ages, condemned with the same holy\nhorror those who expressed doubt as to the orthodox number of years\nsince the beginning of the world, and those who doubted an earthquake to\nbe the literal voice of an angry God, or who questioned the plurality of\nthe heavens, or who gainsaid the statement that God brings out the stars\nfrom his treasures and hangs them up in the solid firmament above the\nearth every night.\n\nAbout the beginning of the seventh century Isidore of Seville, the great\ntheologian of his time, took up the subject. He accepted the dominant\nview not only of Hebrew but of all other chronologies, without anything\nlike real criticism. The childlike faith of his system may be imagined\nfrom his summaries which follow. He tells us:\n\n\"Joseph lived one hundred and five years. Greece began to cultivate\ngrain.\"\n\n\"The Jews were in slavery in Egypt one hundred and forty-four years.\nAtlas discovered astrology.\"\n\n\"Joshua ruled for twenty-seven years. Ericthonius yoked horses\ntogether.\"\n\n\"Othniel, forty years. Cadmus introduced letters into Greece.\"\n\n\"Deborah, forty years. Apollo discovered the art of medicine and\ninvented the cithara.\"\n\n\"Gideon, forty years. Mercury invented the lyre and gave it to Orpheus.\"\n\nReasoning in this general way, Isidore kept well under the longer date;\nand, the great theological authority of southern Europe having thus\nspoken, the question was virtually at rest throughout Christendom for\nnearly a hundred years.\n\nEarly in the eighth century the Venerable Bede took up the problem.\nDwelling especially upon the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament,\nhe soon entangled himself in very serious difficulties; but, in spite of\nthe great fathers of the first three centuries, he reduced the antiquity\nof man on the earth by nearly a thousand years, and, in spite of\nmutterings against him as coming dangerously near a limit which made the\ntheological argument from the six days of creation to the six ages of\nthe world look doubtful, his authority had great weight, and did much to\nfix western Europe in its allegiance to the general system laid down by\nEusebius and Jerome.\n\nIn the twelfth century this belief was re-enforced by a tide of thought\nfrom a very different quarter. Rabbi Moses Maimonides and other Jewish\nscholars, by careful study of the Hebrew text, arrived at conclusions\ndiminishing the antiquity of man still further, and thus gave\nstrength throughout the Middle Ages to the shorter chronology: it was\nincorporated into the sacred science of Christianity; and Vincent of\nBeauvais, in his great Speculum Historiale, forming part of that still\nmore enormous work intended to sum up all the knowledge possessed by the\nages of faith, placed the creation of man at about four thousand years\nbefore our era.(182)\n\n\n     (182) For a table summing up the periods, from Adam to the building of\nthe Temple, explicitly given in the Scriptures, see the admirable paper\non The Pope and the Bible, in The Contemporary Review for April, 1893.\nFor the date of man's creation as given by leading chronologists in\nvarious branches of the Church, see L'Art de Verifier les Dates,\nParis, 1819, vol. i, pp. 27 et seq. In this edition there are sundry\ntypographical errors; compare with Wallace, True Age of the World,\nLondon, 1844. As to preference for the longer computation by the fathers\nof the Church, see Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii, p. 291. For the\nsacred significance of the six days of creation in ascertaining\nthe antiquity of man, see especially Eichen, Geschichte der\nmittelalterlichen Weltanschauung; also Wallace, True Age of the World,\npp. 2,3. For the views of St. Augustine, see Topinard, Anthropologie,\nciting the De Civ. Dei., lib. xvi, c. viii, c. x. For the views of\nPhilastrius, see the De Hoeresibus, c. 102, 112, et passim, in Migne,\ntome xii. For Eusebius's simple credulity, see the tables in Palmer's\nEgyptian Chronicles, vol. ii, pp. 828, 829. For Bede, see Usher's\nChronologia Sacra, cited in Wallace, True Age of the World, p. 35. For\nIsidore of Seville, see the Etymologia, lib. v, c. 39; also lib. iii, in\nMigne, tome lxxxii.\n\n\nAt the Reformation this view was not disturbed. The same manner of\naccepting the sacred text which led Luther, Melanchthon, and the great\nProtestant leaders generally, to oppose the Copernican theory, fixed\nthem firmly in this biblical chronology; the keynote was sounded for\nthem by Luther when he said, \"We know, on the authority of Moses,\nthat longer ago than six thousand years the world did not exist.\"\nMelanchthon, more exact, fixed the creation of man at 3963 B.C.\n\nBut the great Christian scholars continued the old endeavour to make the\ntime of man's origin more precise: there seems to have been a sort\nof fascination in the subject which developed a long array of\nchronologists, all weighing the minutest indications in our sacred\nbooks, until the Protestant divine De Vignolles, who had given forty\nyears to the study of biblical chronology, declared in 1738 that he had\ngathered no less than two hundred computations based upon Scripture, and\nno two alike.\n\nAs to the Roman Church, about 1580 there was published, by authority of\nPope Gregory XIII, the Roman Martyrology, and this, both as originally\npublished and as revised in 1640 under Pope Urban VIII, declared that\nthe creation of man took place 5199 years before Christ.\n\nBut of all who gave themselves up to these chronological studies, the\nman who exerted the most powerful influence upon the dominant nations of\nChristendom was Archbishop Usher. In 1650 he published his Annals of the\nAncient and New Testaments, and it at once became the greatest authority\nfor all English-speaking peoples. Usher was a man of deep and wide\ntheological learning, powerful in controversy; and his careful\nconclusion, after years of the most profound study of the Hebrew\nScriptures, was that man was created 4004 years before the Christian\nera. His verdict was widely received as final; his dates were inserted\nin the margins of the authorized version of the English Bible, and\nwere soon practically regarded as equally inspired with the sacred text\nitself: to question them seriously was to risk preferment in the Church\nand reputation in the world at large.\n\nThe same adhesion to the Hebrew Scriptures which had influenced Usher\nbrought leading men of the older Church to the same view: men who would\nhave burned each other at the stake for their differences on other\npoints, agreed on this: Melanchthon and Tostatus, Lightfoot and Jansen,\nSalmeron and Scaliger, Petavius and Kepler, inquisitors and reformers,\nJesuits and Jansenists, priests and rabbis, stood together in the belief\nthat the creation of man was proved by Scripture to have taken place\nbetween 3900 and 4004 years before Christ.\n\nIn spite of the severe pressure of this line of authorities, extending\nfrom St. Jerome and Eusebius to Usher and Petavius, in favour of this\nscriptural chronology, even devoted Christian scholars had sometimes\nfelt obliged to revolt. The first great source of difficulty was\nincreased knowledge regarding the Egyptian monuments. As far back as\nthe last years of the sixteenth century Joseph Scaliger had done what\nhe could to lay the foundations of a more scientific treatment of\nchronology, insisting especially that the historical indications in\nPersia, in Babylon, and above all in Egypt, should be brought to bear\non the question. More than that, he had the boldness to urge that the\nchronological indications of the Hebrew Scriptures should be fully and\ncritically discussed in the light of Egyptian and other records, without\nany undue bias from theological considerations. His idea may well be\ncalled inspired; yet it had little effect as regards a true view of the\nantiquity of man, even upon himself, for the theological bias prevailed\nabove all his reasonings, even in his own mind. Well does a brilliant\nmodern writer declare that, \"among the multitude of strong men in modern\ntimes abdicating their reason at the command of their prejudices, Joseph\nScaliger is perhaps the most striking example.\" Early in the following\ncentury Sir Walter Raleigh, in his History of the World (1603-1616),\npointed out the danger of adhering to the old system. He, too, foresaw\none of the results of modern investigation, stating it in these words,\nwhich have the ring of prophetic inspiration: \"For in Abraham's time\nall the then known parts of the world were developed.... Egypt had many\nmagnificent cities,... and these not built with sticks, but of hewn\nstone,... which magnificence needed a parent of more antiquity than\nthese other men have supposed.\" In view of these considerations Raleigh\nfollowed the chronology of the Septuagint version, which enabled him to\ngive to the human race a few more years than were usually allowed.\n\nAbout the middle of the seventeenth century Isaac Vossius, one of the\nmost eminent scholars of Christendom, attempted to bring the prevailing\nbelief into closer accordance with ascertained facts, but, save by a\nchosen few, his efforts were rejected. In some parts of Europe a man\nholding new views on chronology was by no means safe from bodily harm.\nAs an example of the extreme pressure exerted by the old theological\nsystem at times upon honest scholars, we may take the case of La\nPeyrere, who about the middle of the seventeenth century put forth his\nbook on the Pre-Adamites--an attempt to reconcile sundry well-known\ndifficulties in Scripture by claiming that man existed on earth before\nthe time of Adam. He was taken in hand at once; great theologians rushed\nforward to attack him from all parts of Europe; within fifty years\nthirty-six different refutations of his arguments had appeared;\nthe Parliament of Paris burned the book, and the Grand Vicar of the\narchdiocese of Mechlin threw him into prison and kept him there until\nhe was forced, not only to retract his statements, but to abjure his\nProtestantism.\n\nIn England, opposition to the growing truth was hardly less earnest.\nEspecially strong was Pearson, afterward Master of Trinity and Bishop\nof Chester. In his treatise on the Creed, published in 1659, which has\nremained a theologic classic, he condemned those who held the earth to\nbe more than fifty-six hundred years old, insisted that the first man\nwas created just six days later, declared that the Egyptian records were\nforged, and called all Christians to turn from them to \"the infallible\nannals of the Spirit of God.\"\n\nBut, in spite of warnings like these, we see the new idea cropping out\nin various parts of Europe. In 1672, Sir John Marsham published a work\nin which he showed himself bold and honest. After describing the heathen\nsources of Oriental history, he turns to the Christian writers,\nand, having used the history of Egypt to show that the great Church\nauthorities were not exact, he ends one important argument with the\nfollowing words: \"Thus the most interesting antiquities of Egypt have\nbeen involved in the deepest obscurity by the very interpreters of\nher chronology, who have jumbled everything up (qui omnia susque deque\npermiscuerunt), so as to make them match with their own reckonings\nof Hebrew chronology. Truly a very bad example, and quite unworthy of\nreligious writers.\"\n\nThis sturdy protest of Sir John against the dominant system and against\nthe \"jumbling\" by which Eusebius had endeavoured to cut down ancient\nchronology within safe and sound orthodox limits, had little effect.\nThough eminent chronologists of the eighteenth century, like Jackson,\nHales, and Drummond, gave forth multitudes of ponderous volumes pleading\nfor a period somewhat longer than that generally allowed, and\ninsisting that the received Hebrew text was grossly vitiated as\nregards chronology, even this poor favour was refused them; the mass of\nbelievers found it more comfortable to hold fast the faith committed to\nthem by Usher, and it remained settled that man was created about four\nthousand years before our era.\n\nTo those who wished even greater precision, Dr. John Lightfoot,\nVice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, the great rabbinical\nscholar of his time, gave his famous demonstration from our sacred books\nthat \"heaven and earth, centre and circumference, were created together,\nin the same instant, and clouds full of water,\" and that \"this work took\nplace and man was created by the Trinity on the twenty-third of October,\n4004 B.C., at nine o'clock in the morning.\"\n\nThis tide of theological reasoning rolled on through the eighteenth\ncentury, swollen by the biblical researches of leading commentators,\nCatholic and Protestant, until it came in much majesty and force into\nour own nineteenth century. At the very beginning of the century it\ngained new strength from various great men in the Church, among whom may\nbe especially named Dr. Adam Clarke, who declared that, \"to preclude the\npossibility of a mistake, the unerring Spirit of God directed Moses in\nthe selection of his facts and the ascertaining of his dates.\"\n\nAll opposition to the received view seemed broken down, and as late as\n1835--indeed, as late as 1850--came an announcement in the work of one\nof the most eminent Egyptologists, Sir J. G. Wilkinson, to the\neffect that he had modified the results he had obtained from Egyptian\nmonuments, in order that his chronology might not interfere with the\nreceived date of the Deluge of Noah.(183)\n\n\n     (183) For Lightfoot, see his Prolegomena relating to the age of the\nworld at the birth of Christ; see also in the edition of his works,\nLondon, 1822, vol. 4, pp. 64, 112. For Scaliger, see in the De\nEmendatione Temporum, 1583; also Mark Pattison, Essays, Oxford, 1889,\nvol. i, pp. 162 et seq. For Raleigh's misgivings, see his History of the\nWorld, London, 1614, p. 227, book ii of part i, section 7 of chapter\ni; also Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii, p. 293. For Usher, see\nhis Annales Vet. et Nov. Test., London, 1650. For Pearson, see his\nExposition of the Creed, sixth edition, London, 1692, pp. 59 et seq.\nFor Marsham, see his Chronicus Canon Aegypticus, Ebraicus, Graecus,\net Disquisitiones, London, 1672. For La Peyrere, see especially\nQuatrefarges, in Revue de Deux Mondes for 1861; also other chapters in\nthis work. For Jackson, Hales, and others, see Wallace's True Age of\nthe World. For Wilkinson, see various editions of his work on Egypt. For\nVignolles, see Leblois, vol. iii, p. 617. As to the declaration in favor\nof the recent origin of man, sanctioned by Popes Gregory XIII and Urban\nVIII, see Strachius, cited in Wallace, p. 97. For the general agreement\nof Church authorities, as stated, see L'Art de Verifier les Dates, as\nabove. As to difficulties of scriptural chronology, see Ewald, History\nof Israel, English translation, London, 1883, pp. 204 et seq.\n\n\n\n\n\nII. THE NEW CHRONOLOGY.\n\n\nBut all investigators were not so docile as Wilkinson, and there soon\ncame a new train of scientific thought which rapidly undermined all this\ntheological chronology. Not to speak of other noted men, we have early\nin the present century Young, Champollion, and Rosellini, beginning a\nnew epoch in the study of the Egyptian monuments. Nothing could be more\ncautious than their procedure, but the evidence was soon overwhelming in\nfavour of a vastly longer existence of man in the Nile Valley than\ncould be made to agree with even the longest duration then allowed by\ntheologians. For, in spite of all the suppleness of men like Wilkinson,\nit became evident that, whatever system of scriptural chronology was\nadopted, Egypt was the seat of a flourishing civilization at a period\nbefore the \"Flood of Noah,\" and that no such flood had ever interrupted\nit. This was bad, but worse remained behind: it was soon clear that\nthe civilization of Egypt began earlier than the time assigned for\nthe creation of man, even according to the most liberal of the sacred\nchronologists.\n\nAs time went on, this became more and more evident. The long duration\nassigned to human civilization in the fragments of Manetho, the Egyptian\nscribe at Thebes in the third century B.C., was discovered to be more\naccordant with truth than the chronologies of the great theologians;\nand, as the present century has gone on, scientific results have\nbeen reached absolutely fatal to the chronological view based by the\nuniversal Church upon Scripture for nearly two thousand years.\n\nAs is well known, the first of the Egyptian kings of whom mention is\nmade upon the monuments of the Nile Valley is Mena, or Menes. Manetho\nhad given a statement, according to which Mena must have lived nearly\nsix thousand years before the Christian era. This was looked upon for a\nlong time as utterly inadmissible, as it was so clearly at variance\nwith the chronology of our own sacred books; but, as time went on, large\nfragments of the original work of Manetho were more carefully studied\nand distinguished from corrupt transcriptions, the lists of kings at\nKarnak, Sacquarah, and the two temples at Abydos were brought to light,\nand the lists of court architects were discovered. Among all these\nmonuments the scholar who visits Egypt is most impressed by the\nsculptured tablets giving the lists of kings. Each shows the monarch of\nthe period doing homage to the long line of his ancestors. Each of these\nsculptured monarchs has near him a tablet bearing his name. That great\ncare was always taken to keep these imposing records correct is certain;\nthe loyalty of subjects, the devotion of priests, and the family pride\nof kings were all combined in this; and how effective this care was,\nis seen in the fact that kings now known to be usurpers are carefully\nomitted. The lists of court architects, extending over the period from\nSeti to Darius, throw a flood of light over the other records.\n\nComparing, then, all these sources, and applying an average from the\nlengths of the long series of well-known reigns to the reigns preceding,\nthe most careful and cautious scholars have satisfied themselves that\nthe original fragments of Manetho represent the work of a man honest and\nwell informed, and, after making all allowances for discrepancies and\nthe overlapping of reigns, it has become clear that the period known as\nthe reign of Mena must be fixed at more than three thousand years\nB.C. In this the great Egyptologists of our time concur. Mariette,\nthe eminent French authority, puts the date at 5004 B.C.; Brugsch, the\nleading German authority, puts it at about 4500 B.C.; and Meyer, the\nlatest and most cautious of the historians of antiquity, declares 3180\nB.C. the latest possible date that can be assigned it. With these\ndates the foremost English authorities, Sayce and Flinders Petrie,\nsubstantially agree. This view is also confirmed on astronomical grounds\nby Mr. Lockyer, the Astronomer Royal. We have it, then, as the result of\na century of work by the most acute and trained Egyptologists, and with\nthe inscriptions upon the temples and papyri before them, both of which\nare now read with as much facility as many medieval manuscripts, that\nthe reign of Mena must be placed more than five thousand years ago.\n\nBut the significance of this conclusion can not be fully understood\nuntil we bring into connection with it some other facts revealed by the\nEgyptian monuments.\n\nThe first of these is that which struck Sir Walter Raleigh, that,\neven in the time of the first dynasties in the Nile Valley, a high\ncivilization had already been developed. Take, first, man himself:\nwe find sculptured upon the early monuments types of the various\nraces--Egyptians, Israelites, negroes, and Libyans--as clearly\ndistinguishable in these paintings and sculptures of from four to six\nthousand years ago as the same types are at the present day. No one\ncan look at these sculptures upon the Egyptian monuments, or even the\ndrawings of them, as given by Lepsius or Prisse d' Avennes, without\nbeing convinced that they indicate, even at that remote period, a\ndifference of races so marked that long previous ages must have been\nrequired to produce it.\n\nThe social condition of Egypt revealed in these early monuments of art\nforces us to the same conclusion. Those earliest monuments show that a\nvery complex society had even then been developed. We not only have a\nseparation between the priestly and military orders, but agriculturists,\nmanufacturers, and traders, with a whole series of subdivisions in\neach of these classes. The early tombs show us sculptured and painted\nrepresentations of a daily life which even then had been developed into\na vast wealth and variety of grades, forms, and usages.\n\nTake, next, the political and military condition. One fact out of many\nreveals a policy which must have been the result of long experience.\nJust as now, at the end of the nineteenth century, the British\nGovernment, having found that they can not rely upon the native\nEgyptians for the protection of the country, are drilling the negroes\nfrom the interior of Africa as soldiers, so the celebrated inscription\nof Prince Una, as far back as the sixth dynasty, speaks of the Maksi or\nnegroes levied and drilled by tens of thousands for the Egyptian army.\n\nTake, next, engineering. Here we find very early operations in the way\nof canals, dikes, and great public edifices, so bold in conception and\nthorough in execution as to fill our greatest engineers of these days\nwith astonishment. The quarrying, conveyance, cutting, jointing, and\npolishing of the enormous blocks in the interior of the Great Pyramid\nalone are the marvel of the foremost stone-workers of our century.\n\nAs regards architecture, we find not only the pyramids, which date from\nthe very earliest period of Egyptian history, and which are to this hour\nthe wonder of the world for size, for boldness, for exactness, and for\nskilful contrivance, but also the temples, with long ranges of\ncolossal columns wrought in polished granite, with wonderful beauty of\nornamentation, with architraves and roofs vast in size and exquisite in\nadjustment, which by their proportions tax the imagination, and lead the\nbeholder to ask whether all this can be real.\n\nAs to sculpture, we have not only the great Sphinx of Gizeh, so\nmarvellous in its boldness and dignity, dating from the very first\nperiod of Egyptian history, but we have ranges of sphinxes, heroic\nstatues, and bas-reliefs, showing that even in the early ages this\nbranch of art had reached an amazing development.\n\nAs regards the perfection of these, Lubke, the most eminent German\nauthority on plastic art, referring to the early works in the tombs\nabout Memphis, declares that, \"as monuments of the period of the fourth\ndynasty, they are an evidence of the high perfection to which the\nsculpture of the Egyptians had attained.\" Brugsch declares that \"every\nartistic production of those early days, whether picture, writing, or\nsculpture, bears the stamp of the highest perfection in art.\" Maspero,\nthe most eminent French authority in this field, while expressing his\nbelief that the Sphinx was sculptured even before the time of Mena,\ndeclares that \"the art which conceived and carved this prodigious statue\nwas a finished art--an art which had attained self-mastery and was sure\nof its effects\"; while, among the more eminent English authorities,\nSayce tells us that \"art is at its best in the age of the\npyramid-builders,\" and Sir James Fergusson declares, \"We are startled to\nfind Egyptian art nearly as perfect in the oldest periods as in any of\nthe later.\"\n\nThe evidence as to the high development of Egyptian sculpture in the\nearlier dynasties becomes every day more overwhelming. What exquisite\ngenius the early Egyptian sculptors showed in their lesser statues is\nknown to all who have seen those most precious specimens in the museum\nat Cairo, which were wrought before the conventional type was adopted in\nobedience to religious considerations.\n\nIn decorative and especially in ceramic art, as early as the fourth\nand fifth dynasties, we have vases, cups, and other vessels showing\nexquisite beauty of outline and a general sense of form almost if not\nquite equal to Etruscan and Grecian work of the best periods.\n\nTake, next, astronomy. Going back to the very earliest period of\nEgyptian civilization, we find that the four sides of the Great Pyramid\nare adjusted to the cardinal points with the utmost precision. \"The day\nof the equinox can be taken by observing the sun set across the face of\nthe pyramid, and the neighbouring Arabs adjust their astronomical dates\nby its shadow.\" Yet this is but one out of many facts which prove that\nthe Egyptians, at the earliest period of which their monuments exist,\nhad arrived at knowledge and skill only acquired by long ages of\nobservation and thought. Mr. Lockyer, Astronomer Royal of Great Britain,\nhas recently convinced himself, after careful examination of various\nruined temples at Thebes and elsewhere, that they were placed with\nreference to observations of stars. To state his conclusion in his own\nwords: \"There seems a very high probability that three thousand, and\npossibly four thousand, years before Christ the Egyptians had among them\nmen with some knowledge of astronomy, and that six thousand years ago\nthe course of the sun through the year was practically very well known,\nand methods had been invented by means of which in time it might\nbe better known; and that, not very long after that, they not only\nconsidered questions relating to the sun, but began to take up other\nquestions relating to the position and movement of the stars.\"\n\nThe same view of the antiquity of man in the Nile valley is confirmed by\nphilologists. To use the words of Max Duncker: \"The oldest monuments\nof Egypt--and they are the oldest monuments in the world--exhibit the\nEgyptian in possession of the art of writing.\" It is found also, by the\ninscriptions of the early dynasties, that the Egyptian language had even\nat that early time been developed in all essential particulars to the\nhighest point it ever attained. What long periods it must have required\nfor such a development every scholar in philology can imagine.\n\nAs regards medical science, we have the Berlin papyrus, which, although\nof a later period, refers with careful specification to a medical\nliterature of the first dynasty.\n\nAs regards archaeology, the earliest known inscriptions point to still\nearlier events and buildings, indicating a long sequence in previous\nhistory.\n\nAs to all that pertains to the history of civilization, no man of fair\nand open mind can go into the museums of Cairo or the Louvre or the\nBritish Museum and look at the monuments of those earlier dynasties\nwithout seeing in them the results of a development in art, science,\nlaws, customs, and language, which must have required a vast period\nbefore the time of Mena. And this conclusion is forced upon us all the\nmore invincibly when we consider the slow growth of ideas in the earlier\nstages of civilization as compared with the later--a slowness of growth\nwhich has kept the natives of many parts of the world in that earliest\ncivilization to this hour. To this we must add the fact that Egyptian\ncivilization was especially immobile: its development into castes is but\none among many evidences that it was the very opposite of a civilization\ndeveloped rapidly.\n\nAs to the length of the period before the time of Mena, there is, of\ncourse, nothing exact. Manetho gives lists of great personages before\nthat first dynasty, and these extend over twenty-four thousand years.\nBunsen, one of the most learned of Christian scholars, declares that\nnot less than ten thousand years were necessary for the development of\ncivilization up to the point where we find it in Mena's time. No one can\nclaim precision for either of these statements, but they are valuable\nas showing the impression of vast antiquity made upon the most competent\njudges by the careful study of those remains: no unbiased judge can\ndoubt that an immensely long period of years must have been required for\nthe development of civilization up to the state in which we there find\nit.\n\nThe investigations in the bed of the Nile confirm these views. That some\nunwarranted conclusions have at times been announced is true; but the\nfact remains that again and again rude pottery and other evidences of\nearly stages of civilization have been found in borings at places so\ndistant from each other, and at depths so great, that for such a range\nof concurring facts, considered in connection with the rate of earthy\ndeposit by the Nile, there is no adequate explanation save the existence\nof man in that valley thousands on thousands of years before the longest\ntime admitted by our sacred chronologists.\n\nNor have these investigations been of a careless character. Between\nthe years 1851 and 1854, Mr. Horner, an extremely cautious English\ngeologist, sank ninety-six shafts in four rows at intervals of eight\nEnglish miles, at right angles to the Nile, in the neighbourhood of\nMemphis. In these pottery was brought up from various depths, and\nbeneath the statue of Rameses II at Memphis from a depth of thirty-nine\nfeet. At the rate of the Nile deposit a careful estimate has declared\nthis to indicate a period of over eleven thousand years. So eminent a\nGerman authority, in geography as Peschel characterizes objections to\nsuch deductions as groundless. However this may be, the general results\nof these investigations, taken in connection with the other results of\nresearch, are convincing.\n\nAnd, finally, as if to make assurance doubly sure, a series of\narchaeologists of the highest standing, French, German, English, and\nAmerican, have within the past twenty years discovered relics of a\nsavage period, of vastly earlier date than the time of Mena, prevailing\nthroughout Egypt. These relics have been discovered in various parts of\nthe country, from Cairo to Luxor, in great numbers. They are the same\nsort of prehistoric implements which prove to us the early existence of\nman in so many other parts of the world at a geological period so remote\nthat the figures given by our sacred chronologists are but trivial. The\nlast and most convincing of these discoveries, that of flint implements\nin the drift, far down below the tombs of early kings at Thebes, and\nupon high terraces far above the present bed of the Nile, will be\nreferred to later.\n\nBut it is not in Egypt alone that proofs are found of the utter\ninadequacy of the entire chronological system derived from our sacred\nbooks. These results of research in Egypt are strikingly confirmed by\nresearch in Assyria and Babylonia. Prof. Sayce exhibits various proofs\nof this. To use his own words regarding one of these proofs: \"On the\nshelves of the British Museum you may see huge sun-dried bricks, on\nwhich are stamped the names and titles of kings who erected or repaired\nthe temples where they have been found.... They must... have reigned\nbefore the time when, according to the margins of our Bibles, the Flood\nof Noah was covering the earth and reducing such bricks as these to\ntheir primeval slime.\"\n\nThis conclusion was soon placed beyond a doubt. The lists of king's and\ncollateral inscriptions recovered from the temples of the great valley\nbetween the Tigris and Euphrates, and the records of astronomical\nobservations in that region, showed that there, too, a powerful\ncivilization had grown up at a period far earlier than could be made\nconsistent with our sacred chronology. The science of Assyriology was\nthus combined with Egyptology to furnish one more convincing proof that,\nprecious as are the moral and religious truths in our sacred books\nand the historical indications which they give us, these truths\nand indications are necessarily inclosed in a setting of myth and\nlegend.(184)\n\n\n     (184) As to Manetho, see, for a very full account of his relations to\nother chronologists, Palmer, Egyptian Chronicles, vol. i, chap. ii.\nFor a more recent and readable account, see Brugsch, Egypt under the\nPharaohs, English edition, London, 1879, chap. iv. For lists of kings at\nAbydos and elsewhere, also the lists of architects, see Brugsch, Palmer,\nMariette, and others; also illustrations in Lepsius. For proofs that the\ndynasties given were consecutive and not contemporeaneous, as was\nonce so fondly argued by those who tried to save Archbishop Usher's\nchronology, see Mariette; also Sayce's Herodotus, appendix, p. 316.\nFor the various race types given on early monuments, see the coloured\nengravings in Lepsius, Denkmaler; also Prisse d'Avennes, and the\nfrontpiece in the English edition of Brugsch; see also statement\nregarding the same subject in Tylor, Anthropology, chap. i. For\nthe fulness of development of Egyptian civilization in the earliest\ndynasties, see Rawlinson's Egypt, London, 1881, chap. xiii; also Brugsch\nand other works cited. For the perfection of Egyptian engineering,\nI rely not merely upon my own observation, but on what is far more\nimportant, the testimony of my friend the Hon. J. G. Batterson, probably\nthe largest and most experienced worker in granite in the United States,\nwho acknowledges, from personal observation, that the early Egyptian\nwork is, in boldness and perfection, far beyond anything known since,\nand a source of perpetual wonder to him. As to the perfection of\nEgyptian architecture, see very striking statements in Fergusson,\nHistory of Architecture, book i, chap. i. As to the pyramids, showing a\nvery high grade of culture already reached under the earliest dynasties,\nsee Lubke, Gesch. der Arch., book i. For Sayce's views, see his\nHerodotus, appendix, p. 348. As to sculpture, see for representations\nphotographs published by the Boulak Museum, and such works as the\nDescription de l'Egypte, Lepsius's Denkmaler, and Prisse d'Avennes; see\nalso a most small work, easy of access, Maspero, Archeology, translated\nby Miss A. B. Edwards, New York and London, 1887, chaps. i and ii. See\nespecially in Prisse, vol. ii, the statue of Chafre the Scribe, and the\ngroup of \"Tea\" and his wife. As to the artistic value of the Sphinx,\nsee Maspero, as above, pp. 202, 203. See also similar ideas in Lubke's\nHistory of Sculpture, vol. i, p. 24. As to astronomical knowledge\nevidenced by the Great Pyramid, see Tylor, as above, p. 21; also\nLockyer, On Some Points in the Early History of Astronomy, in Nature\nfor 1891, and especially in the issues of June 4th and July 2d; also his\nDawn of Astronomy, passim. For a recent and conservative statement as to\nthe date of Mena, see Flinders Petrie, History of Egypt, London, 1894,\nchap. ii. For delineations of vases, etc., showing Grecian proportion\nand beauty of form under the fourth and fifth dynasties, see Prisse,\nvol. ii, Art Industriel. As to the philological question, and the\ndevelopment of language in Egypt, with the hieroglyphic sytem of\nwriting, see Rawlinson's Egypt, London, 1881, chap. xii; also Lenormanr;\nalso Max Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, Abbott's translation, 1877.\nAs to the medical papyrus of Berlin, see Brugsch, vol. i, p. 58, but\nespecially the Papyrus Ebers. As to the corruption of later copies of\nManetho and fidelity of originals as attested by the monuments, see\nBrugsch, chap. iv. On the accuracy of the present Egyptian chronology as\nregards long periods, see ibid, vol. i, p. 32. As to the pottery found\ndeep in the Nile and the value of Horner's discovery, see Peschel, Races\nof Man, New York, 1876, pp. 42-44. For succinct statement, see also\nLaing, Problems of the Future, p. 94. For confirmatory proofs from\nAssyriology, see Sayce, Lectures on the Religion of the Babylonians\n(Hibbert Lectures for 1887), London, 1887, introductory chapter, and\nespecially pp. 21-25. See also Laing, Human Origins, chap. ii, for an\nexcellent summary. For an account of flint implements recently found\nin gravel terraces fifteen hundred feet above the present level of the\nNile, and showing evidences of an age vastly greater even than those dug\nout of the gravel at Thebes, see article by Flinders Petrie in London\nTimes of April 18th, 1895.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.  THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN AND PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY\n\n\n\n\nI. THE THUNDER-STONES.\n\n\nWhile the view of chronology based upon the literal acceptance of\nScripture texts was thus shaken by researches in Egypt, another line\nof observation and thought was slowly developed, even more fatal to the\ntheological view.\n\nFrom a very early period there had been dug from the earth, in various\nparts of the world, strangely shaped masses of stone, some rudely\nchipped, some polished: in ancient times the larger of these were very\noften considered as thunderbolts, the smaller as arrows, and all of\nthem as weapons which had been hurled by the gods and other supernatural\npersonages. Hence a sort of sacredness attached to them. In Chaldea,\nthey were built into the wall of temples; in Egypt, they were strung\nabout the necks of the dead. In India, fine specimens are to this day\nseen upon altars, receiving prayers and sacrifices.\n\nNaturally these beliefs were brought into the Christian mythology and\nadapted to it. During the Middle Ages many of these well-wrought stones\nwere venerated as weapons, which during the \"war in heaven\" had been\nused in driving forth Satan and his hosts; hence in the eleventh century\nan Emperor of the East sent to the Emperor of the West a \"heaven axe\";\nand in the twelfth century a Bishop of Rennes asserted the value of\nthunder-stones as a divinely-appointed means of securing success in\nbattle, safety on the sea, security against thunder, and immunity from\nunpleasant dreams. Even as late as the seventeenth century a French\nambassador brought a stone hatchet, which still exists in the museum at\nNancy, as a present to the Prince-Bishop of Verdun, and claimed for it\nhealth-giving virtues.\n\nIn the last years of the sixteenth century Michael Mercati tried to\nprove that the \"thunder-stones\" were weapons or implements of early\nraces of men; but from some cause his book was not published until the\nfollowing century, when other thinkers had begun to take up the same\nidea, and then it had to contend with a theory far more accordant with\ntheologic modes of reasoning in science. This was the theory of the\nlearned Tollius, who in 1649 told the world that these chipped or\nsmoothed stones were \"generated in the sky by a fulgurous exhalation\nconglobed in a cloud by the circumposed humour.\"\n\nBut about the beginning of the eighteenth century a fact of great\nimportance was quietly established. In the year 1715 a large pointed\nweapon of black flint was found in contact with the bones of an\nelephant, in a gravel bed near Gray's Inn Lane, in London. The world in\ngeneral paid no heed to this: if the attention of theologians was called\nto it, they dismissed it summarily with a reference to the Deluge of\nNoah; but the specimen was labelled, the circumstances regarding it were\nrecorded, and both specimen and record carefully preserved.\n\nIn 1723 Jussieu addressed the French Academy on The Origin and Uses of\nThunder-stones. He showed that recent travellers from various parts of\nthe world had brought a number of weapons and other implements of stone\nto France, and that they were essentially similar to what in Europe had\nbeen known as \"thunder-stones.\" A year later this fact was clinched into\nthe scientific mind of France by the Jesuit Lafitau, who published\na work showing the similarity between the customs of aborigines then\nexisting in other lands and those of the early inhabitants of Europe. So\nbegan, in these works of Jussieu and Lafitau, the science of Comparative\nEthnography.\n\nBut it was at their own risk and peril that thinkers drew from these\ndiscoveries any conclusions as to the antiquity of man. Montesquieu,\nhaving ventured to hint, in an early edition of his Persian Letters,\nthat the world might be much older than had been generally supposed,\nwas soon made to feel danger both to his book and to himself, so that in\nsucceeding editions he suppressed the passage.\n\nIn 1730 Mahudel presented a paper to the French Academy of Inscriptions\non the so-called \"thunder-stones,\" and also presented a series of plates\nwhich showed that these were stone implements, which must have been used\nat an early period in human history.\n\nIn 1778 Buffon, in his Epoques de la Nature, intimated his belief that\n\"thunder-stones\" were made by early races of men; but he did not press\nthis view, and the reason for his reserve was obvious enough: he had\nalready one quarrel with the theologians on his hands, which had cost\nhim dear--public retraction and humiliation. His declaration, therefore,\nattracted little notice.\n\nIn the year 1800 another fact came into the minds of thinking men in\nEngland. In that year John Frere presented to the London Society of\nAntiquaries sundry flint implements found in the clay beds near\nHoxne: that they were of human make was certain, and, in view of the\nundisturbed depths in which they were found, the theory was suggested\nthat the men who made them must have lived at a very ancient geological\nepoch; yet even this discovery and theory passed like a troublesome\ndream, and soon seemed to be forgotten.\n\nAbout twenty years later Dr. Buckland published a discussion of the\nsubject, in the light of various discoveries in the drift and in caves.\nIt received wide attention, but theology was soothed by his temporary\nconcession that these striking relics of human handiwork, associated\nwith the remains of various extinct animals, were proofs of the Deluge\nof Noah.\n\nIn 1823 Boue, of the Vienna Academy of Sciences, showed to Cuvier sundry\nhuman bones found deep in the alluvial deposits of the upper Rhine,\nand suggested that they were of an early geological period; this Cuvier\nvirtually, if not explicitly, denied. Great as he was in his own field,\nhe was not a great geologist; he, in fact, led geology astray for many\nyears. Moreover, he lived in a time of reaction; it was the period of\nthe restored Bourbons, of the Voltairean King Louis XVIII, governing\nto please orthodoxy. Boue's discovery was, therefore, at first opposed,\nthen enveloped in studied silence.\n\nCuvier evidently thought, as Voltaire had felt under similar\ncircumstances, that \"among wolves one must howl a little\"; and his\nleading disciple, Elie de Beaumont, who succeeded, him in the sway over\ngeological science in France, was even more opposed to the new view\nthan his great master had been. Boue's discoveries were, therefore,\napparently laid to rest forever.(185)\n\n\n     (185) For the general history of early views regarding stone implements,\nsee the first chapters in Cartailhac, La France Prehistorique; also\nJolie, L'Homme avant les Metaux; also Lyell, Lubbock, and Evans. For\nlightning-stones in China and elsewhere, see citation from a Chinese\nencyclopedia of 1662, in Tylor, Early History of Mankind, p. 209. On the\nuniversality of this belief, on the surviving use of stone implements\neven into civilized times, and on their manufacture to-day, see ibid.,\nchapter viii. For the treatment of Boue's discovery, see especially\nMorillet, Le Prehistorique, Paris, 1885, p. 11. For the suppression of\nthe passage in Montesquieu's Persian Letters, see Letter 113, cited in\nSchlosser's History of the Eighteenth Century (English translation),\nvol. i, p. 135.\n\n\nIn 1825 Kent's Cavern, near Torquay, was explored by the Rev. Mr.\nMcEnery, a Roman Catholic clergyman, who seems to have been completely\noverawed by orthodox opinion in England and elsewhere; for, though\nhe found human bones and implements mingled with remains of extinct\nanimals, he kept his notes in manuscript, and they were only brought to\nlight more than thirty years later by Mr. Vivian.\n\nThe coming of Charles X, the last of the French Bourbons, to the throne,\nmade the orthodox pressure even greater. It was the culmination of\nthe reactionary period--the time in France when a clerical committee,\nsitting at the Tuileries, took such measures as were necessary to hold\nin check all science that was not perfectly \"safe\"; the time in Austria\nwhen Kaiser Franz made his famous declaration to sundry professors, that\nwhat he wanted of them was simply to train obedient subjects, and that\nthose who did not make this their purpose would be dismissed; the time\nin Germany when Nicholas of Russia and the princelings and ministers\nunder his control, from the King of Prussia downward, put forth all\ntheir might in behalf of \"scriptural science\"; the time in Italy when\na scientific investigator, arriving at any conclusion distrusted by\nthe Church, was sure of losing his place and in danger of losing his\nliberty; the time in England when what little science was taught was\nheld in due submission to Archdeacon Paley; the time in the United\nStates when the first thing essential in science was, that it be\nadjusted to the ideas of revival exhorters.\n\nYet men devoted to scientific truth laboured on; and in 1828 Tournal, of\nNarbonne, discovered in the cavern of Bize specimens of human industry,\nwith a fragment of a human skeleton, among bones of extinct animals. In\nthe following year Christol published accounts of his excavations in the\ncaverns of Gard; he had found in position, and under conditions which\nforbade the idea of after-disturbance, human remains mixed with bones of\nthe extinct hyena of the early Quaternary period. Little general notice\nwas taken of this, for the reactionary orthodox atmosphere involved such\ndiscoveries in darkness.\n\nBut in the French Revolution of 1830 the old politico-theological system\ncollapsed: Charles X and his advisers fled for their lives; the other\ncontinental monarchs got glimpses of new light; the priesthood in charge\nof education were put on their good behaviour for a time, and a better\nera began.\n\nUnder the constitutional monarchy of the house of Orleans in France and\nBelgium less attention was therefore paid by Government to the saving\nof souls; and we have in rapid succession new discoveries of remains\nof human industry, and even of human skeletons so mingled with bones of\nextinct animals as to give additional proofs that the origin of man was\nat a period vastly earlier than any which theologians had dreamed of.\n\nA few years later the reactionary clerical influence against science in\nthis field rallied again. Schmerling in 1833 had explored a multitude\nof caverns in Belgium, especially at Engis and Engihoul, and had found\nhuman skulls and bones closely associated with bones of extinct animals,\nsuch as the cave bear, hyena, elephant, and rhinoceros, while mingled\nwith these were evidences of human workmanship in the shape of chipped\nflint implements; discoveries of a similar sort had been made by\nDe Serres in France and by Lund in Brazil; but, at least as far as\ncontinental Europe was concerned, these discoveries were received with\nmuch coolness both by Catholic leaders of opinion in France and Belgium\nand by Protestant leaders in England and Holland. Schmerling himself\nappears to have been overawed, and gave forth a sort of apologetic\ntheory, half scientific, half theologic, vainly hoping to satisfy the\nclerical side.\n\nNor was it much better in England. Sir Charles Lyell, so devoted a\nservant of prehistoric research thirty years later, was still holding\nout against it on the scientific side; and, as to the theological\nside, it was the period when that great churchman, Dean Cockburn, was\ninsulting geologists from the pulpit of York Minster, and the Rev.\nMellor Brown denouncing geology as \"a black art,\" \"a forbidden province\"\nand when, in America, Prof. Moses Stuart and others like him were\nbelittling the work of Benjamin Silliman and Edward Hitchcock.\n\nIn 1840 Godwin Austin presented to the Royal Geological Society\nan account of his discoveries in Kent's Cavern, near Torquay, and\nespecially of human bones and implements mingled with bones of the\nelephant, rhinoceros, cave bear, hyena, and other extinct animals;\nyet this memoir, like that of McEnery fifteen years before, found an\natmosphere so unfavourable that it was not published.\n\n\n\n\nII. THE FLINT WEAPONS AND IMPLEMENTS.\n\n\nAt the middle of the nineteenth century came the beginning of a new\nepoch in science--an epoch when all these earlier discoveries were to\nbe interpreted by means of investigations in a different field: for,\nin 1847, a man previously unknown to the world at large, Boucher de\nPerthes, published at Paris the first volume of his work on Celtic and\nAntediluvian Antiquities, and in this he showed engravings of typical\nflint implements and weapons, of which he had discovered thousands upon\nthousands in the high drift beds near Abbeville, in northern France.\n\nThe significance of this discovery was great indeed--far greater than\nBoucher himself at first supposed. The very title of his book showed\nthat he at first regarded these implements and weapons as having\nbelonged to men overwhelmed at the Deluge of Noah; but it was soon\nseen that they were something very different from proofs of the literal\nexactness of Genesis: for they were found in terraces at great heights\nabove the river Somme, and, under any possible theory having regard to\nfact, must have been deposited there at a time when the river system\nof northern France was vastly different from anything known within\nthe historic period. The whole discovery indicated a series of great\ngeological changes since the time when these implements were made,\nrequiring cycles of time compared to which the space allowed by the\northodox chronologists was as nothing.\n\nHis work was the result of over ten years of research and thought.\nYear after year a force of men under his direction had dug into these\nhigh-terraced gravel deposits of the river Somme, and in his book he\nnow gave, in the first full form, the results of his labour. So far as\nFrance was concerned, he was met at first by what he calls \"a conspiracy\nof silence,\" and then by a contemptuous opposition among orthodox\nscientists, at the head of whom stood Elie de Beaumont.\n\nThis heavy, sluggish opposition seemed immovable: nothing that Boucher\ncould do or say appeared to lighten the pressure of the orthodox\ntheological opinion behind it; not even his belief that these fossils\nwere remains of men drowned at the Deluge of Noah, and that they were\nproofs of the literal exactness of Genesis seemed to help the matter.\nHis opponents felt instinctively that such discoveries boded danger to\nthe accepted view, and they were right: Boucher himself soon saw the\nfolly of trying to account for them by the orthodox theory.\n\nAnd it must be confessed that not a little force was added to the\nopposition by certain characteristics of Boucher de Perthes himself.\nGifted, far-sighted, and vigorous as he was, he was his own worst enemy.\nCarried away by his own discoveries, he jumped to the most astounding\nconclusions. The engravings in the later volume of his great work,\nshowing what he thought to be human features and inscriptions upon\nsome of the flint implements, are worthy of a comic almanac; and at\nthe National Museum of Archaeology at St. Germain, beneath the shelves\nbearing the remains which he discovered, which mark the beginning of a\nnew epoch in science, are drawers containing specimens hardly worthy of\na penny museum, but from which he drew the most unwarranted inferences\nas to the language, religion, and usages of prehistoric man.\n\nBoucher triumphed none the less. Among his bitter opponents at first was\nDr. Rigollot, who in 1855, searching earnestly for materials to refute\nthe innovator, dug into the deposits of St. Acheul--and was converted:\nfor he found implements similar to those of Abbeville, making still more\ncertain the existence of man during the Drift period. So, too, Gaudry a\nyear later made similar discoveries.\n\nBut most important was the evidence of the truth which now came from\nother parts of France and from other countries. The French leaders in\ngeological science had been held back not only by awe of Cuvier but by\nrecollections of Scheuchzer. Ridicule has always been a serious weapon\nin France, and the ridicule which finally overtook the supporters of\nthe attempt of Scheuchzer, Mazurier, and others, to square geology with\nGenesis, was still remembered. From the great body of French geologists,\ntherefore, Boucher secured at first no aid. His support came from the\nother side of the Channel. The most eminent English geologists, such as\nFalconer, Prestwich, and Lyell, visited the beds at Abbeville and St.\nAcheul, convinced themselves that the discoveries of Boucher, Rigollot,\nand their colleagues were real, and then quietly but firmly told England\nthe truth.\n\nAnd now there appeared a most effective ally in France. The\narguments used against Boucher de Perthes and some of the other early\ninvestigators of bone caves had been that the implements found might\nhave been washed about and turned over by great floods, and therefore\nthat they might be of a recent period; but in 1861 Edward Lartet\npublished an account of his own excavations at the Grotto of Aurignac,\nand the proof that man had existed in the time of the Quaternary animals\nwas complete. This grotto had been carefully sealed in prehistoric times\nby a stone at its entrance; no interference from disturbing currents of\nwater had been possible; and Lartet found, in place, bones of eight out\nof nine of the main species of animals which characterize the Quaternary\nperiod in Europe; and upon them marks of cutting implements, and in the\nmidst of them coals and ashes.\n\nClose upon these came the excavations at Eyzies by Lartet and his\nEnglish colleague, Christy. In both these men there was a carefulness in\nmaking researches and a sobriety in stating results which converted many\nof those who had been repelled by the enthusiasm of Boucher de Perthes.\nThe two colleagues found in the stony deposits made by the water\ndropping from the roof of the cave at Eyzies the bones of numerous\nanimals extinct or departed to arctic regions--one of these a vertebra\nof a reindeer with a flint lance-head still fast in it, and with these\nwere found evidences of fire.\n\nDiscoveries like these were thoroughly convincing; yet there still\nremained here and there gainsayers in the supposed interest of\nScripture, and these, in spite of the convincing array of facts,\ninsisted that in some way, by some combination of circumstances, these\nbones of extinct animals of vastly remote periods might have been\nbrought into connection with all these human bones and implements of\nhuman make in all these different places, refusing to admit that\nthese ancient relics of men and animals were of the same period. Such\ngainsayers virtually adopted the reasoning of quaint old Persons, who,\nhaving maintained that God created the world \"about five thousand sixe\nhundred and odde yeares agoe,\" added, \"And if they aske what God was\ndoing before this short number of yeares, we answere with St. Augustine\nreplying to such curious questioners, that He was framing Hell for\nthem.\" But a new class of discoveries came to silence this opposition.\nAt La Madeleine in France, at the Kessler cave in Switzerland, and\nat various other places, were found rude but striking carvings and\nengravings on bone and stone representing sundry specimens of those\nlong-vanished species; and these specimens, or casts of them, were soon\nto be seen in all the principal museums. They showed the hairy mammoth,\nthe cave bear, and various other animals of the Quaternary period,\ncarved rudely but vigorously by contemporary men; and, to complete the\nsignificance of these discoveries, travellers returning from the\nicy regions of North America brought similar carvings of animals now\nexisting in those regions, made by the Eskimos during their long arctic\nwinters to-day.(186)\n\n\n     (186) For the explorations in Belgium, see Dupont, Le Temps\nPrehistorique en Belgique. For the discoveries by McEnery and Godwin\nAustin, see Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, London, 1869, chap. x; also\nCartailhac, Joly, and others above cited. For Boucher de Perthes, see\nhis Antiquites Celtiques et Antediluviennes, Paris, 1847-'64, vol. iii,\npp. 526 et seq. For sundry extravagances of Boucher de Perthes, see\nReinach, Description raisonne du Musee de St.-Germain-en-Laye, Paris,\n1889, vol. i, pp. 16 et seq. For the mixture of sound and absurd results\nin Boucher's work, see Cartailhac as above, p. 19. Boucher had published\nin 1838 a work entitled De la Creation, but it seems to have dropped\ndead from the press. For the attempts of Scheuchzer to reconcile geology\nand Genesis by means of the Homo diluvii testis, and similar \"diluvian\nfossils,\" see the chapter on Geology in this series. The original\nspecimens of these prehistoric engravings upon bone and stone may best\nbe seen at the Archaeological Museum of St.-Germain and the British\nMuseum. For engravings of some of the most recent, see especially\nDawkin's Early Man in Britain, chap. vii, and the Description du Musee\nde St.-Germain. As to the Kessler etchings and their antiquity, see\nD. G. Brinton, in Science, August 12, 1892. For comparison of this\nprehistoric work with that produced to-day by the Eskimos and others,\nsee Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapters x and xiv. For very striking\nexhibitions of this same artistic gift in a higher field to-day by\ndescendants of the barbarian tribes of northern America, see the very\nremarkable illustrations in Rink, Danish Greenland, London, 1877,\nespecially those in chap. xiv.\n\n\nAs a result of these discoveries and others like them, showing that man\nwas not only contemporary with long-extinct animals of past geological\nepochs, but that he had already developed into a stage of culture above\npure savagery, the tide of thought began to turn. Especially was this\nseen in 1863, when Lyell published the first edition of his Geological\nEvidence of the Antiquity of Man; and the fact that he had so long\nopposed the new ideas gave force to the clear and conclusive argument\nwhich led him to renounce his early scientific beliefs.\n\nResearch among the evidences of man's existence in the early Quaternary,\nand possibly in the Tertiary period, was now pressed forward along the\nwhole line. In 1864 Gabriel Mortillet founded his review devoted to\nthis subject; and in 1865 the first of a series of scientific congresses\ndevoted to such researches was held in Italy. These investigations\nwent on vigorously in all parts of France and spread rapidly to other\ncountries. The explorations which Dupont began in 1864, in the caves\nof Belgium, gave to the museum at Brussels eighty thousand flint\nimplements, forty thousand bones of animals of the Quaternary period,\nand a number of human skulls and bones found mingled with these remains.\nFrom Germany, Italy, Spain, America, India, and Egypt similar results\nwere reported.\n\nEspecially noteworthy were the further explorations of the caves and\ndrift throughout the British Islands. The discovery by Colonel Wood, In\n1861, of flint tools in the same strata with bones of the earlier forms\nof the rhinoceros, was but typical of many. A thorough examination of\nthe caverns of Brixham and Torquay, by Pengelly and others, made it\nstill more evident that man had existed in the early Quaternary period.\nThe existence of a period before the Glacial epoch or between different\nglacial epochs in England, when the Englishman was a savage, using rude\nstone tools, was then fully ascertained, and, what was more significant,\nthere were clearly shown a gradation and evolution even in the history\nof that period. It was found that this ancient Stone epoch showed\nprogress and development. In the upper layers of the caves, with remains\nof the reindeer, who, although he has migrated from these regions, still\nexists in more northern climates, were found stone implements revealing\nsome little advance in civilization; next below these, sealed up in\nthe stalagmite, came, as a rule, another layer, in which the remains\nof reindeer were rare and those of the mammoth more frequent, the\nimplements found in this stratum being less skilfully made than those\nin the upper and more recent layers; and, finally, in the lowest levels,\nnear the floors of these ancient caverns, with remains of the cave\nbear and others of the most ancient extinct animals, were found stone\nimplements evidently of a yet ruder and earlier stage of human progress.\nNo fairly unprejudiced man can visit the cave and museum at Torquay\nwithout being convinced that there were a gradation and an evolution in\nthese beginnings of human civilization. The evidence is complete;\nthe masses of breccia taken from the cave, with the various soils,\nimplements, and bones carefully kept in place, put this progress beyond\na doubt.\n\nAll this indicated a great antiquity for the human race, but in it lay\nthe germs of still another great truth, even more important and more\nserious in its consequences to the older theologic view, which will be\ndiscussed in the following chapter.\n\nBut new evidences came in, showing a yet greater antiquity of man.\nRemains of animals were found in connection with human remains, which\nshowed not only that man was living in times more remote than the\nearlier of the new investigators had dared dream, but that some of\nthese early periods of his existence must have been of immense length,\nembracing climatic changes betokening different geological periods; for\nwith remains of fire and human implements and human bones were found not\nonly bones of the hairy mammoth and cave bear, woolly rhinoceros, and\nreindeer, which could only have been deposited there in a time of arctic\ncold, but bones of the hyena, hippopotamus, sabre-toothed tiger, and\nthe like, which could only have been deposited when there was in these\nregions a torrid climate. The conjunction of these remains clearly\nshowed that man had lived in England early enough and long enough to\npass through times when there was arctic cold and times when there was\ntorrid heat; times when great glaciers stretched far down into England\nand indeed into the continent, and times when England had a land\nconnection with the European continent, and the European continent with\nAfrica, allowing tropical animals to migrate freely from Africa to the\nmiddle regions of England.\n\nThe question of the origin of man at a period vastly earlier than the\nsacred chronologists permitted was thus absolutely settled, but among\nthe questions regarding the existence of man at a period yet more\nremote, the Drift period, there was one which for a time seemed to give\nthe champions of science some difficulty. The orthodox leaders in the\ntime of Boucher de Perthes, and for a considerable time afterward, had\na weapon of which they made vigorous use: the statement that no human\nbones had yet been discovered in the drift. The supporters of science\nnaturally answered that few if any other bones as small as those of man\nhad been found, and that this fact was an additional proof of the great\nlength of the period since man had lived with the extinct animals; for,\nsince specimens of human workmanship proved man's existence as fully as\nremains of his bones could do, the absence or even rarity of human and\nother small bones simply indicated the long periods of time required for\ndissolving them away.\n\nYet Boucher, inspired by the genius he had already shown, and filled\nwith the spirit of prophecy, declared that human bones would yet be\nfound in the midst of the flint implements, and in 1863 he claimed that\nthis prophecy had been fulfilled by the discovery at Moulin Quignon of\na portion of a human jaw deep in the early Quaternary deposits. But his\ntriumph was short-lived: the opposition ridiculed his discovery; they\nshowed that he had offered a premium to his workmen for the discovery\nof human remains, and they naturally drew the inference that some\ntricky labourer had deceived him. The result of this was that the men\nof science felt obliged to acknowledge that the Moulin Quignon discovery\nwas not proven.\n\nBut ere long human bones were found in the deposits of the early\nQuaternary period, or indeed of an earlier period, in various other\nparts of the world, and the question regarding the Moulin Quignon relic\nwas of little importance.\n\nWe have seen that researches regarding the existence of prehistoric\nman in England and on the Continent were at first mainly made in the\ncaverns; but the existence of man in the earliest Quaternary period\nwas confirmed on both sides of the English Channel, in a way even\nmore striking, by the close examination of the drift and early gravel\ndeposits. The results arrived at by Boucher de Perthes were amply\nconfirmed in England. Rude stone implements were found in terraces a\nhundred feet and more above the levels at which various rivers of Great\nBritain now flow, and under circumstances which show that, at the time\nwhen they were deposited, the rivers of Great Britain in many cases were\nentirely different from those of the present period, and formed parts\nof the river system of the European continent. Researches in the high\nterraces above the Thames and the Ouse, as well as at other points in\nGreat Britain, placed beyond a doubt the fact that man existed on the\nBritish Islands at a time when they were connected by solid land\nwith the Continent, and made it clear that, within the period of the\nexistence of man in northern Europe, a large portion of the British\nIslands had been sunk to depths between fifteen hundred and twenty-five\nhundred feet beneath the Northern Ocean,--had risen again from the\nwater,--had formed part of the continent of Europe, and had been in\nunbroken connection with Africa, so that elephants, bears, tigers,\nlions, the rhinoceros and hippopotamus, of species now mainly extinct,\nhad left their bones in the same deposits with human implements as far\nnorth as Yorkshire. Moreover, connected with this fact came in the new\nconviction, forced upon geologists by the more careful examination of\nthe earth and its changes, that such elevations and depressions of Great\nBritain and other parts of the world were not necessarily the results\nof sudden cataclysms, but generally of slow processes extending through\nvast cycles of years--processes such as are now known to be going on in\nvarious parts of the world. Thus it was that the six or seven thousand\nyears allowed by the most liberal theologians of former times were seen\nmore and more clearly to be but a mere nothing in the long succession of\nages since the appearance of man.\n\nConfirmation of these results was received from various other parts of\nthe world. In Africa came the discovery of flint implements deep in the\nhard gravel of the Nile Valley at Luxor and on the high hills behind\nEsneh. In America the discoveries at Trenton, N.J., and at various\nplaces in Delaware, Ohio, Minnesota, and elsewhere, along the southern\nedge of the drift of the Glacial epochs, clinched the new scientific\ntruth yet more firmly; and the statement made by an eminent American\nauthority is, that \"man was on this continent when the climate and ice\nof Greenland extended to the mouth of New York harbour.\" The discoveries\nof prehistoric remains on the Pacific coast, and especially in British\nColumbia, finished completely the last chance at a reasonable contention\nby the adherents of the older view. As to these investigations on the\nPacific slope of the United States, the discoveries of Whitney and\nothers in California had been so made and announced that the judgment of\nscientific men regarding them was suspended until the visit of perhaps\nthe greatest living authority in his department, Alfred Russel Wallace,\nin 1887. He confirmed the view of Prof. Whitney and others with the\nstatement that \"both the actual remains and works of man found deep\nunder the lava-flows of Pliocene age show that he existed in the\nNew World at least as early as in the Old.\" To this may be added the\ndiscoveries in British Columbia, which prove that, since man existed in\nthese regions, \"valleys have been filled up by drift from the waste of\nmountains to a depth in some cases of fifteen hundred feet; this covered\nby a succession of tuffs, ashes, and lava-streams from volcanoes long\nsince extinct, and finally cut down by the present rivers through beds\nof solid basalt, and through this accumulation of lavas and gravels.\"\nThe immense antiquity of the human remains in the gravels of the Pacific\ncoast is summed up by a most eminent English authority and declared\nto be proved, \"first, by the present river systems being of subsequent\ndate, sometimes cutting through them and their superincumbent lava-cap\nto a depth of two thousand feet; secondly, by the great denudation that\nhas taken place since they were deposited, for they sometimes lie on the\nsummits of mountains six thousand feet high; thirdly, by the fact that\nthe Sierra Nevada has been partly elevated since their formation.\"(187)\n\n\n     (187) For the general subject of investigations in British prehistoric\nremains, see especially Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain and his Place\nin the Tertiary Period, London, 1880. For Boucher de Perthes's account\nof his discovery of the human jaw at Moulin Quignon, see his Antiquites\nCeltiques et Antediluviennes, vol. iii, p. 542 et seq., Appendix. For an\nexcellent account of special investigations in the high terraces above\nthe Thames, see J. Allen Brown, F. G. S., Palaeolithic Man in Northwest\nMiddlesex, London, 1887. For discoveries in America, and the citations\nregarding them, see Wright, the Ice Age in North America, New York,\n1889, chap. xxi. Very remarkable examples of these specimens from\nthe drift at Trenton may be seen in Prof. Abbott's collections at the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania. For an admirable statement, see Prof. Henry\nW. Haynes, in Wright, as above. For proofs of the vast antiquity of man\nupon the Pacific coast, cited in the text, see Skertchley, F. G. S., in\nthe Journal of the Anthropological Institute for 1887, p. 336; see also\nWallace, Darwinism, London, 1890, chap. xv; and for a striking summary\nof the evidence that man lived before the last submergence of Britain,\nsee Brown, Palaeolithic Man in Northwest Middlesex, as above cited.\nFor proofs that man existed in a period when the streams were flowing\nhundreds of feet above their present level, see ibid., p. 33. As to the\nevidence of the action of the sea and of glacial action in the Welsh\nbone caves after the remains of extinct animals and weapons of human\nworkmanship had been deposited, see ibid., p. 198. For a good statement\nof the slowness of the submergance and emergence of Great Britain, with\nan illustration from the rising of the shore of Finland, see ibid.,\npp. 47, 48. As to the flint implements of Palaeolithic man in the high\nterraced gravels throughout the Thames Valley, associated with bones of\nthe mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, etc., see Brown, p. 31. For still\nmore conclusive proofs that man inhabited North Wales before the last\nsubmergence of the greater part of the British Islands to a depth of\ntwelve hundred to fourteen hundred feet, see ibid., pp. 199, 200. For\nmaps showing the connection of the British river system with that of the\nContinent, see Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Britain, London, 1880, pp.\n18, 41, 73; also Lyell, Antiquity of Man, chap. xiv. As to the long\ncontinuance of the early Stone period, see James Geikie, The Great Ice\nAge, New York, 1888, p. 402. As to the impossibility of the animals of\nthe arctic and torrid regions living together or visiting the same place\nat different times in the same year, see Geikie, as above, pp. 421\net seq.; and for a conclusive argument that the animals of the period\nassigned lived in England not since, but before, the Glacial period,\nor in the intergalcial period, see ibid., p. 459. For a very candid\nstatement by perhaps the foremost leader of the theological rear-guard,\nadmitting the insuperable difficulties presented by the Old Testament\nchronology as regards the Creation and the Deluge, see the Duke of\nArgyll's Primeval Man, pp. 90-100, and especially pp. 93, 124. For a\nsuccinct statement on the general subject, see Laing, Problems of the\nFuture, London, 1889, chapters v and vi. For discoveries of prehistoric\nimplements in India, see notes by Bruce Foote, F. G. S., in the British\nJournal of the Anthropological Institute for 1886 and 1887. For\nsimilar discoveries in South Africa, see Gooch, in Journal of the\nAnthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. xi, pp. 124\net seq. For proofs of the existance of Palaeolithic man in Egypt, see\nMook, Haynes, Pitt-Rivers, Flinders-Petrie, and others, cited at length\nin the next chapter. For the corroborative and concurrent testimony\nof ethnology, philology, and history to the vast antiquity of man, see\nTylor, Anthropology, chap. i.\n\n\nAs an important supplement to these discoveries of ancient implements\ncame sundry comparisons made by eminent physiologists between human\nskulls and bones found in different places and under circumstances\nshowing vast antiquity.\n\nHuman bones had been found under such circumstances as early as 1835\nat Cannstadt near Stuttgart, and in 1856 in the Neanderthal near\nDusseldorf; but in more recent searches they had been discovered in a\nmultitude of places, especially in Germany, France, Belgium, England,\nthe Caucasus, Africa, and North and South America. Comparison of these\nbones showed that even in that remote Quaternary period there were great\ndifferences of race, and here again came in an argument for the yet\nearlier existence of man on the earth; for long previous periods must\nhave been required to develop such racial differences. Considerations\nof this kind gave a new impulse to the belief that man's existence might\neven date back into the Tertiary period. The evidence for this earlier\norigin of man was ably summed up, not only by its brilliant advocate,\nMortillet, but by a former opponent, one of the most conservative of\nmodern anthropologists, Quatrefages; and the conclusion arrived at\nby both was, that man did really exist in the Tertiary period. The\nacceptance of this conclusion was also seen in the more recent work\nof Alfred Russel Wallace, who, though very cautious and conservative,\nplaced the origin of man not only in the Tertiary period, but in an\nearlier stage of it than most had dared assign--even in the Miocene.\n\nThe first thing raising a strong presumption, if not giving proof, that\nman existed in the Tertiary, was the fact that from all explored\nparts of the world came in more and more evidence that in the earlier\nQuaternary man existed in different, strongly marked races and in great\nnumbers. From all regions which geologists had explored, even from\nthose the most distant and different from each other, came this same\nevidence--from northern Europe to southern Africa; from France to China;\nfrom New Jersey to British Columbia; from British Columbia to Peru. The\ndevelopment of man in such numbers and in so many different regions,\nwith such differences of race and at so early a period, must have\nrequired a long previous time.\n\nThis argument was strengthened by discoveries of bones bearing marks\napparently made by cutting instruments, in the Tertiary formations of\nFrance and Italy, and by the discoveries of what were claimed to be\nflint implements by the Abbe Bourgeois in France, and of implements and\nhuman bones by Prof. Capellini in Italy.\n\nOn the other hand, some of the more cautious men of science are still\ncontent to say that the existence of man in the Tertiary period is not\nyet proven. As to his existence throughout the Quaternary epoch, no new\nproofs are needed; even so determined a supporter of the theological\nside as the Duke of Argyll has been forced to yield to the evidence.\n\nOf attempts to make an exact chronological statement throwing light on\nthe length of the various prehistoric periods, the most notable have\nbeen those by M. Morlot, on the accumulated strata of the Lake of\nGeneva; by Gillieron, on the silt of Lake Neufchatel; by Horner, in the\ndelta deposits of Egypt; and by Riddle, in the delta of the Mississippi.\nBut while these have failed to give anything like an exact result,\nall these investigations together point to the central truth, so amply\nestablished, of the vast antiquity of man, and the utter inadequacy of\nthe chronology given in our sacred books. The period of man's past life\nupon our planet, which has been fixed by the universal Church, \"always,\neverywhere, and by all,\" is thus perfectly proved to be insignificant\ncompared with those vast geological epochs during which man is now known\nto have existed.(188)\n\n\n     (188) As to the evidence of man in the Tertiary period, see works\nalready cited, especially Quatrefages, Cartailhac, and Mortillet. For an\nadmirable summary, see Laing, Human Origins, chap. viii. See also, for\na summing up of the evidence in favour of man in the Tertiary period,\nQuatrefages, History Generale des Races Humaines, in the Bibliotheque\nEthnologique, Paris, 1887, chap. iv. As to the earlier view, see Vogt,\nLectures on Man, London, 1864, lecture xi. For a thorough and convincing\nrefutation of Sir J. W. Dawson's attempt to make the old and new Stone\nperiods coincide, see H. W. Haynes, in chap. vi of the History of\nAmerica, edited by Justin Winsor. For development of various important\npoints in the relation of anthropology to the human occupancy of our\nplanet, see Topinard, Anthropology, London, 1890, chap. ix.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. THE \"FALL OF MAN\" AND ANTHROPOLOGY\n\n\nIn the previous chapters we have seen how science, especially within\nthe eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, has thoroughly changed the\nintelligent thought of the world in regard to the antiquity of man upon\nour planet; and how the fabric built upon the chronological indications\nin our sacred books--first, by the early fathers of the Church,\nafterward by the medieval doctors, and finally by the reformers and\nmodern orthodox chronologists--has virtually disappeared before an\nentirely different view forced upon us, especially by Egyptian and\nAssyrian studies, as well as by geology and archeology.\n\nIn this chapter I purpose to present some outlines of the work of\nAnthropology, especially as assisted by Ethnology, in showing what the\nevolution of human civilization has been.\n\nHere, too, the change from the old theological view based upon the\nletter of our sacred books to the modern scientific view based upon\nevidence absolutely irrefragable is complete. Here, too, we are at the\nbeginning of a vast change in the basis and modes of thought upon man--a\nchange even more striking than that accomplished by Copernicus and\nGalileo, when they substituted for a universe in which sun and planets\nrevolved about the earth a universe in which the earth is but the merest\ngrain or atom revolving with other worlds, larger and smaller, about the\nsun; and all these forming but one among innumerable systems.\n\nEver since the beginning of man's effective thinking upon the great\nproblems around him, two antagonistic views have existed regarding the\nlife of the human race upon earth. The first of these is the belief that\nman was created \"in the beginning\" a perfect being, endowed with the\nhighest moral and intellectual powers, but that there came a \"fall,\"\nand, as its result, the entrance into the world of evil, toil, sorrow,\nand death.\n\nNothing could be more natural than such an explanation of the existence\nof evil, in times when men saw everywhere miracle and nowhere law. It\nis, under such circumstances, by far the most easy of explanations, for\nit is in accordance with the appearances of things: men adopted it just\nas naturally as they adopted the theory that the Almighty hangs up the\nstars as lights in the solid firmament above the earth, or hides the sun\nbehind a mountain at night, or wheels the planets around the earth, or\nflings comets as \"signs and wonders\" to scare a wicked world, or allows\nevil spirits to control thunder, lightning, and storm, and to cause\ndiseases of body and mind, or opens the \"windows of heaven\" to let down\n\"the waters that be above the heavens,\" and thus to give rain upon the\nearth.\n\nA belief, then, in a primeval period of innocence and perfection--moral,\nintellectual, and physical--from which men for some fault fell, is\nperfectly in accordance with what we should expect.\n\nAmong the earliest known records of our race we find this view taking\nshape in the Chaldean legends of war between the gods, and of a fall of\nman; both of which seemed necessary to explain the existence of evil.\n\nIn Greek mythology perhaps the best-known statement was made by Hesiod:\nto him it was revealed, regarding the men of the most ancient times,\nthat they were at first \"a golden race,\" that \"as gods they were wont\nto live, with a life void of care, without labour and trouble; nor was\nwretched old age at all impending; but ever did they delight themselves\nout of the reach of all ills, and they died as if overcome by sleep;\nall blessings were theirs: of its own will the fruitful field would bear\nthem fruit, much and ample, and they gladly used to reap the labours\nof their hands in quietness along with many good things, being rich in\nflocks and true to the blessed gods.\" But there came a \"fall,\" caused\nby human curiosity. Pandora, the first woman created, received a vase\nwhich, by divine command, was to remain closed; but she was tempted to\nopen it, and troubles, sorrow, and disease escaped into the world, hope\nalone remaining.\n\nSo, too, in Roman mythological poetry the well-known picture by Ovid\nis but one among the many exhibitions of this same belief in a primeval\ngolden age--a Saturnian cycle; one of the constantly recurring attempts,\nso universal and so natural in the early history of man, to account for\nthe existence of evil, care, and toil on earth by explanatory myths and\nlegends.\n\nThis view, growing out of the myths, legends, and theologies of earlier\npeoples, we also find embodied in the sacred tradition of the Jews,\nand especially in one of the documents which form the impressive poem\nbeginning the books attributed to Moses. As to the Christian Church, no\nword of its Blessed Founder indicates that it was committed by him to\nthis theory, or that he even thought it worthy of his attention. How,\nlike so many other dogmas never dreamed of by Jesus of Nazareth and\nthose who knew him best, it was developed, it does not lie within the\nprovince of this chapter to point out; nor is it worth our while to\ndwell upon its evolution in the early Church, in the Middle Ages, at the\nReformation, and in various branches of the Protestant Church: suffice\nit that, though among English-speaking nations by far the most important\ninfluence in its favour has come from Milton's inspiration rather than\nfrom that of older sacred books, no doctrine has been more universally\naccepted, \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" from the earliest fathers of\nthe Church down to the present hour.\n\nOn the other hand appeared at an early period the opposite view--that\nmankind, instead of having fallen from a high intellectual, moral, and\nreligious condition, has slowly risen from low and brutal beginnings.\nIn Greece, among the philosophers contemporary with Socrates, we find\nCritias depicting a rise of man, from a time when he was beastlike\nand lawless, through a period when laws were developed, to a time\nwhen morality received enforcement from religion; but among all the\nstatements of this theory the most noteworthy is that given by Lucretius\nin his great poem on The Nature of Things. Despite its errors, it\nremains among the most remarkable examples of prophetic insight in\nthe history of our race. The inspiration of Lucretius gave him\nalmost miraculous glimpses of truth; his view of the development\nof civilization from the rudest beginnings to the height of its\nachievements is a wonderful growth, rooted in observation and thought,\nbranching forth into a multitude of striking facts and fancies; and\namong these is the statement regarding the sequence of inventions:\n\n\n\"Man's earliest arms were fingers, teeth, and nails, And stones and\nfragments from the branching woods; Then copper next; and last, as\nlatest traced, The tyrant, iron.\"\n\n\nThus did the poet prophesy one of the most fruitful achievements of\nmodern science: the discovery of that series of epochs which has been so\ncarefully studied in our century.\n\nVery striking, also, is the statement of Horace, though his idea is\nevidently derived from Lucretius. He dwells upon man's first condition\non earth as low and bestial, and pictures him lurking in caves,\nprogressing from the use of his fists and nails, first to clubs, then\nto arms which he had learned to forge, and, finally, to the invention of\nthe names of things, to literature, and to laws.(189)\n\n\n     (189) For the passage in Hesiod, as given, see the Works and Days, lines\n109-120, in Banks's translation. As to Horace, see the Satires, i, 3,\n99. As to the relation of the poetic account of the Fall in Genesis to\nChaldean myths, see Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 13, 17. For\na very instructive separation of the Jehovistic and Elohistic parts\nof Genesis, with the account of the \"Fall\" as given in the former, see\nLenormant, La Genese, Paris, 1883, pp. 166-168; also Bacon, Genesis of\nGenesis. Of the lines of Lucretius--\n\n\"Arma antiqua, manus, ungues, dentesque fuerunt, Et lapides, et item\nsylvarum fragmina rami, Posterius ferri vis est, aerisque reperta, Sed\nprior aeris erat, quam ferri cognitus usus\"---\n\nthe translation is that of Good. For a more exact prose translation, see\nMunro's Lucretius, fourth edition, which is much more careful, at least\nin the proof-reading, than the first edition. As regards Lucretius's\npropheitc insight into some of the greatest conclusions of modern\nscience, see Munro's translation and notes, fourth edition, book v,\nnotes ii, p. 335. On the relation of several passages in Horace to the\nideas of Lucretius, see Munro as above. For the passage from Luther, see\nthe Table Talk, Hazlitt's translation, p. 242.\n\n\nDuring the mediaeval ages of faith this view was almost entirely\nobscured, and at the Reformation it seemed likely to remain so. Typical\nof the simplicity of belief in \"the Fall\" cherished among the Reformers\nis Luther's declaration regarding Adam and Eve. He tells us, \"they\nentered into the garden about noon, and having a desire to eat, she took\nthe apple; then came the fall--according to our account at about\ntwo o'clock.\" But in the revival of learning the old eclipsed truth\nreappeared, and in the first part of the seventeenth century we find\nthat, among the crimes for which Vanini was sentenced at Toulouse to\nhave his tongue torn out and to be burned alive, was his belief that\nthere is a gradation extending upward from the lowest to the highest\nform of created beings.\n\nYet, in the same century, the writings of Bodin, Bacon, Descartes, and\nPascal were evidently undermining the old idea of \"the Fall.\" Bodin\nespecially, brilliant as were his services to orthodoxy, argued lucidly\nagainst the doctrine of general human deterioration.\n\nEarly in the eighteenth century Vico presented the philosophy of history\nas an upward movement of man out of animalism and barbarism. This idea\ntook firm hold upon human thought, and in the following centuries such\nmen as Lessing and Turgot gave new force to it.\n\nThe investigations of the last forty years have shown that Lucretius and\nHorace were inspired prophets: what they saw by the exercise of reason\nillumined by poetic genius, has been now thoroughly based upon facts\ncarefully ascertained and arranged--until Thomsen and Nilsson, the\nnorthern archaeologists, have brought these prophecies to evident\nfulfilment, by presenting a scientific classification dividing the age\nof prehistoric man in various parts of the world between an old stone\nperiod, a new stone period, a period of beaten copper, a period of\nbronze, and a period of iron, and arraying vast masses of facts from all\nparts of the world, fitting thoroughly into each other, strengthening\neach other, and showing beyond a doubt that, instead of a FALL, there\nhas been a RISE of man, from the earliest indications in the Quaternary,\nor even, possibly, in the Tertiary period.(190)\n\n\n     (190) For Vanini, see Topinard, Elements of Anthropologie, p. 52. For a\nbrief and careful summary of the agency of Eccard in Germany, Goguet\nin France, Hoare in England, and others in various parts of Europe, as\nregards this development of the scientific view during the eighteenth\ncentury, see Mortillet, Le Prehistorique, Paris, 1885, chap. i. For the\nagency of Bodin, Bacon, Descartes, and Pascal, see Flint, Philosophy\nof History, introduction, pp. 28 et seq. For a shorter summary,\nsee Lubbock, Prehistoric Man. For the statements by the northern\narchaeologists, see Nilsson, Worsaae, and the other main works cited in\nthis article. For a generous statement regarding the great services of\nthe Danish archaeologists in this field, see Quatrefages, introduction\nto Cartailhac, Les Ages Prehistoriques de l'Espagne et du Portugal.\n\n\nThe first blow at the fully developed doctrine of \"the Fall\" came, as\nwe have seen, from geology. According to that doctrine, as held quite\ngenerally from its beginnings among the fathers and doctors of\nthe primitive Church down to its culmination in the minds of great\nProtestants like John Wesley, the statement in our sacred books\nthat \"death entered the world by sin\" was taken as a historic fact,\nnecessitating the conclusion that, before the serpent persuaded Eve to\neat of the forbidden fruit, death on our planet was unknown. Naturally,\nwhen geology revealed, in the strata of a period long before the coming\nof man on earth, a vast multitude of carnivorous tribes fitted\nto destroy their fellow-creatures on land and sea, and within the\nfossilized skeletons of many of these the partially digested remains of\nanimals, this doctrine was too heavy to be carried, and it was quietly\ndropped.\n\nBut about the middle of the nineteenth century the doctrine of the\nrise of man as opposed to the doctrine of his \"fall\" received a great\naccession of strength from a source most unexpected. As we saw in the\nlast chapter, the facts proving the great antiquity of man foreshadowed\na new and even more remarkable idea regarding him. We saw, it is true,\nthat the opponents of Boucher de Perthes, while they could not deny his\ndiscovery of human implements in the drift, were successful in securing\na verdict of \"Not proven\" as regarded his discovery of human bones; but\ntheir triumph was short-lived. Many previous discoveries, little thought\nof up to that time, began to be studied, and others were added which\nresulted not merely in confirming the truth regarding the antiquity of\nman, but in establishing another doctrine which the opponents of science\nregarded with vastly greater dislike--the doctrine that man has not\nfallen from an original high estate in which he was created about six\nthousand years ago, but that, from a period vastly earlier than any\nwarranted by the sacred chronologists, he has been, in spite of lapses\nand deteriorations, rising.\n\nA brief review of this new growth of truth may be useful. As early as\n1835 Prof. Jaeger had brought out from a quantity of Quaternary remains\ndug up long before at Cannstadt, near Stuttgart, a portion of a human\nskull, apparently of very low type. A battle raged about it for a time,\nbut this finally subsided, owing to uncertainties arising from the\ncircumstances of the discovery.\n\nIn 1856, in the Neanderthal, near Dusseldorf, among Quaternary remains\ngathered on the floor of a grotto, another skull was found bearing\nthe same evidence of a low human type. As in the case of the Cannstadt\nskull, this again was fiercely debated, and finally the questions\nregarding it were allowed to remain in suspense. But new discoveries\nwere made: at Eguisheim, at Brux, at Spy, and elsewhere, human skulls\nwere found of a similarly low type; and, while each of the earlier\ndiscoveries was open to debate, and either, had no other been\ndiscovered, might have been considered an abnormal specimen, the\ncombination of all these showed conclusively that not only had a race of\nmen existed at that remote period, but that it was of a type as low as\nthe lowest, perhaps below the lowest, now known.\n\nResearch was now redoubled, and, as a result, human skulls and complete\nskeletons of various types began to be discovered in the ancient\ndeposits of many other parts of the world, and especially in France,\nBelgium, Germany, the Caucasus, Africa, and North and South America.\n\nBut soon began to emerge from all these discoveries a fact of enormous\nimportance. The skulls and bones found at Cro Magnon, Solutre, Furfooz,\nGrenelle, and elsewhere, were compared, and it was thus made certain\nthat various races had already appeared and lived in various grades of\ncivilization, even in those exceedingly remote epochs; that even then\nthere were various strata of humanity ranging from races of a very low\nto those of a very high type; and that upon any theory--certainly upon\nthe theory of the origin of mankind from a single pair--two things were\nevident: first, that long, slow processes during vast periods of time\nmust have been required for the differentiation of these races, and for\nthe evolution of man up to the point where the better specimens show\nhim, certainly in the early Quaternary and perhaps in the Tertiary\nperiod; and, secondly, that there had been from the first appearance of\nman, of which we have any traces, an UPWARD tendency.(191)\n\n\n     (191) For Wesley's statement of the amazing consequences of the entrance\nof death into the world by sin, see citations in his sermon on The Fall\nof Man in the chapter on Geology. For Boucher de Perthes, see his Life\nby Ledieu, especially chapters v and xix; also letters in the appendix;\nalso Les Antiquities Celtiques et Antediluviennes, as cited in previous\nchapters of this work. For an account of the Neanderthal man and other\nremains mentioned, see Quatrefages, Human Species, chap. xxvi; also\nMortillet, Le Prehistorique, Paris, 1885, pp. 232 et seq.; also other\nwriters cited in this chapter. For the other discoveries mentioned, see\nthe same sources. For an engraving of the skull and the restored human\nface of the Neanderthal man, see Reinach, Antiquities Nationales, etc.,\nvol. i, p. 138. For the vast regions over which that early race spread,\nsee Quatrefages as above, p. 307. See also the same author, Histoire\nGenerale des Races Humaines, in the Bibliotheque Ethnologique, Paris,\n1887, p. 4. In the vast mass of literature bearing on this subject, see\nQuatrefages, Dupont, Reinach, Joly, Mortillet, Tylor, and Lubbock, in\nworks cited through these chapters.\n\n\nThis second conclusion, the upward tendency of man from low beginnings,\nwas made more and more clear by bringing into relations with these\nremains of human bodies and of extinct animals the remains of human\nhandiwork. As stated in the last chapter, the river drift and bone\ncaves in Great Britain, France, and other parts of the world, revealed a\nprogression, even in the various divisions of the earliest Stone period;\nfor, beginning at the very lowest strata of these remains, on the floors\nof the caverns, associated mainly with the bones of extinct animals,\nsuch as the cave bear, the hairy elephant, and the like, were the rudest\nimplements then, in strata above these, sealed in the stalagmite of the\ncavern floors, lying with the bones of animals extinct but more recent,\nstone implements were found, still rude, but, as a rule, of an improved\ntype; and, finally, in a still higher stratum, associated with bones\nof animals like the reindeer and bison, which, though not extinct, have\ndeparted to other climates, were rude stone implements, on the whole\nof a still better workmanship. Such was the foreshadowing, even at that\nearly rude Stone period, of the proofs that the tendency of man has\nbeen from his earliest epoch and in all parts of the world, as a rule,\nupward.\n\nBut this rule was to be much further exemplified. About 1850, while the\nFrench and English geologists were working more especially among the\nrelics of the drift and cave periods, noted archaeologists of the\nNorth--Forchammer, Steenstrup, and Worsaae--were devoting themselves to\nthe investigation of certain remains upon the Danish Peninsula. These\nremains were of two kinds: first, there were vast shell-heaps or\naccumulations of shells and other refuse cast aside by rude tribes\nwhich at some unknown age in the past lived on the shores of the Baltic,\nprincipally on shellfish. That these shell-heaps were very ancient\nwas evident: the shells of oysters and the like found in them were far\nlarger than any now found on those coasts; their size, so far from being\nlike that of the corresponding varieties which now exist in the brackish\nwaters of the Baltic, was in every case like that of those varieties\nwhich only thrive in the waters of the open salt sea. Here was a clear\nindication that at the time when man formed these shell-heaps those\ncoasts were in far more direct communication with the salt sea than at\npresent, and that sufficient time must have elapsed since that period to\nhave wrought enormous changes in sea and land throughout those regions.\n\nScattered through these heaps were found indications of a grade of\ncivilization when man still used implements of stone, but implements and\nweapons which, though still rude, showed a progress from those of the\ndrift and early cave period, some of them being of polished stone.\n\nWith these were other evidences that civilization had progressed.\nWith implements rude enough to have survived from early periods, other\nimplements never known in the drift and bone caves began to appear,\nand, though there were few if any bones of other domestic animals, the\nremains of dogs were found; everything showed that there had been a\nprogress in civilization between the former Stone epoch and this.\n\nThe second series of discoveries in Scandinavia was made in the\npeat-beds: these were generally formed in hollows or bowls varying in\ndepth from ten to thirty feet, and a section of them, like a section of\nthe deposits in the bone caverns, showed a gradual evolution of human\nculture. The lower strata in these great bowls were found to be made up\nchiefly of mosses and various plants matted together with the trunks\nof fallen trees, sometimes of very large diameter; and the botanical\nexamination of the lowest layer of these trees and plants in the various\nbowls revealed a most important fact: for this layer, the first in point\nof time, was always of the Scotch fir--which now grows nowhere in the\nDanish islands, and can not be made to grow anywhere in them--and of\nplants which are now extinct in these regions, but have retreated within\nthe arctic circle. Coming up from the bottom of these great bowls there\nwas found above the first layer a second, in which were matted together\nmasses of oak trees of different varieties; these, too, were relics of\na bygone epoch, since the oak has almost entirely disappeared from\nDenmark. Above these came a third stratum made up of fallen beech trees;\nand the beech is now, and has been since the beginning of recorded\nhistory, the most common tree of the Danish Peninsula.\n\nNow came a second fact of the utmost importance as connected with the\nfirst. Scattered, as a rule, through the lower of these deposits, that\nof the extinct fir trees and plants, were found implements and weapons\nof smooth stone; in the layer of oak trees were found implements of\nbronze; and among the layer of beeches were found implements and weapons\nof iron.\n\nThe general result of these investigations in these two sources, the\nshell mounds and the peat deposits, was the same: the first civilization\nevidenced in them was marked by the use of stone implements more or less\nsmooth, showing a progress from the earlier rude Stone period made known\nby the bone caves; then came a later progress to a higher civilization,\nmarked by the use of bronze implements; and, finally, a still higher\ndevelopment when iron began to be used.\n\nThe labours of the Danish archaeologists have resulted in the formation\nof a great museum at Copenhagen, and on the specimens they have\nfound, coupled with those of the drift and bone caves, is based the\nclassification between the main periods or divisions in the evolution of\nthe human race above referred to.\n\nIt was not merely in Scandinavian lands that these results were reached;\nsubstantially the same discoveries were made in Ireland and France, in\nSardinia and Portugal, in Japan and in Brazil, in Cuba and in the United\nStates; in fact, as a rule, in nearly every part of the world which was\nthoroughly examined.(192)\n\n\n     (192) For the general subject, see Mortillet, Le Prehistorique, p. 498,\net passim. For examples of the rude stone implements, improving as we go\nfrom earlier to later layers in the bone caves, see Boyd Hawkins, Early\nMan in Britain, chap. vii, p. 186; also Quatrefages, Human Species, New\nYork, 1879, pp. 305 et seq. An interesting gleam of light is thrown on\nthe subject in De Baye, Grottes Prehistoriques de la Marne, pp. 31 et\nseq.; also Evans, as cited in the previous chapter. For the more recent\ninvestigations in the Danish shell-heaps, see Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in\nBritain, pp. 303, 304. For these evidences of advanced civilization in\nthe shell-heaps, see Mortillet, p. 498. He, like Nilsson, says that only\nthe bones of the dog were found; but compare Dawkins, p. 305. For the\nvery full list of these discoveries, with their bearing on each other,\nsee Mortillet, p. 499. As to those in Scandanavian countries, see\nNilsson, The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandanavia, third edition, with\nIntroduction by Lubbock, London, 1868; also the Pre-History of the\nNorth, by Worsaae, English translation, London, 1886. For shell-mounds\nand their contents in the Spanish Peninsula, see Cartailhac's greater\nwork already cited. For summary of such discoveries throughout the\nworld, see Mortillet, Le Prehistorique, pp. 497 et seq.\n\n\nBut from another quarter came a yet more striking indication of this\nsame evolution. As far back as the year 1829 there were discovered,\nin the Lake of Zurich, piles and other antiquities indicating a former\nexistence of human dwellings, standing in the water at some distance\nfrom the shore; but the usual mixture of thoughtlessness and dread of\nnew ideas seems to have prevailed, and nothing was done until about\n1853, when new discoveries of the same kind were followed up vigorously,\nand Rutimeyer, Keller, Troyon, and others showed not only in the Lake\nof Zurich, but in many other lakes in Switzerland, remains of former\nhabitations, and, in the midst of these, great numbers of relics,\nexhibiting the grade of civilization which those lake-dwellers had\nattained.\n\nHere, too, were accumulated proofs of the upward tendency of the human\nrace. Implements of polished stone, bone, leather, pottery of various\ngrades, woven cloth, bones of several kinds of domestic animals, various\nsorts of grain, bread which had been preserved by charring, and a\nmultitude of evidences of progress never found among the earlier, ruder\nrelics of civilization, showed yet more strongly that man had arrived\nhere at a still higher stage than his predecessor of the drift, cave,\nand shell-heap periods, and had gone on from better to better.\n\nVery striking evidences of this upward tendency were found in each class\nof implements. As by comparing the chipped flint implements of the lower\nand earlier strata in the cave period with those of the later and upper\nstrata we saw progress, so, in each of the periods of polished stone,\nbronze, and iron, we see, by similar comparisons, a steady progress from\nrude to perfected implements; and especially is this true in the\nremains of the various lake-dwellings, for among these can be traced out\nconstant increase in the variety of animals domesticated, and gradual\nimprovements in means of subsistence and in ways of living.\n\nIncidentally, too, a fact, at first sight of small account, but on\nreflection exceedingly important, was revealed. The earlier bronze\nimplements were frequently found to imitate in various minor respects\nimplements of stone; in other words, forms were at first given to bronze\nimplements natural in working stone, but not natural in working bronze.\nThis showed the DIRECTION of the development--that it was upward from\nstone to bronze, not downward from bronze to stone; that it was progress\nrather than decline.\n\nThese investigations were supplemented by similar researches elsewhere.\nIn many other parts of the world it was found that lake-dwellers had\nexisted in different grades of civilization, but all within a certain\nrange, intermediate between the cave-dwellers and the historic period.\nTo explain this epoch of the lake-dwellers, history came in with the\naccount given by Herodotus of the lake-dwellings on Lake Prasias,\nwhich gave protection from the armies of Persia. Still more important,\nComparative Ethnography showed that to-day, in various parts of the\nworld, especially in New Guinea and West Africa, races of men are living\nin lake-dwellings built upon piles, and with a range of implements and\nweapons strikingly like many of those discovered in these ancient lake\ndeposits of Switzerland.\n\nIn Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Scotland, and other\ncountries, remains of a different sort were also found, throwing light\non this progress. The cromlechs, cranogs, mounds, and the like,\nthough some of them indicate the work of weaker tribes pressed upon by\nstronger, show, as a rule, the same upward tendency.\n\nAt a very early period in the history of these discoveries, various\nattempts were made--nominally in the interest of religion, but really in\nthe interest of sundry creeds and catechisms framed when men knew little\nor nothing of natural laws--to break the force of such evidences of the\nprogress and development of the human race from lower to higher. Out\nof all the earlier efforts two may be taken as fairly typical, for\nthey exhibit the opposition to science as developed under two different\nschools of theology, each working in its own way. The first of these\nshows great ingenuity and learning, and is presented by Mr. Southall in\nhis book, published in 1875, entitled The Recent Origin of the World.\nIn this he grapples first of all with the difficulties presented by the\nearly date of Egyptian civilization, and the keynote of his argument is\nthe statement made by an eminent Egyptologist, at a period before modern\narchaeological discoveries were well understood, that \"Egypt laughs the\nidea of a rude Stone age, a polished Stone age, a Bronze age, an Iron\nage, to scorn.\"\n\nMr. Southall's method was substantially that of the late excellent Mr.\nGosse in geology. Mr. Gosse, as the readers of this work may remember,\nfelt obliged, in the supposed interest of Genesis, to urge that safety\nto men's souls might be found in believing that, six thousand years ago,\nthe Almighty, for some inscrutable purpose, suddenly set Niagara pouring\nvery near the spot where it is pouring now; laid the various strata,\nand sprinkled the fossils through them like plums through a pudding;\nscratched the glacial grooves upon the rocks, and did a vast multitude\nof things, subtle and cunning, little and great, in all parts of the\nworld, required to delude geologists of modern times into the conviction\nthat all these things were the result of a steady progress through long\nepochs. On a similar plan, Mr. Southall proposed, at the very beginning\nof his book, as a final solution of the problem, the declaration that\nEgypt, with its high civilization in the time of Mena, with its races,\nclasses, institutions, arrangements, language, monuments--all indicating\nan evolution through a vast previous history--was a sudden creation\nwhich came fully made from the hands of the Creator. To use his own\nwords, \"The Egyptians had no Stone age, and were born civilized.\"\n\nThere is an old story that once on a time a certain jovial King of\nFrance, making a progress through his kingdom, was received at the gates\nof a provincial town by the mayor's deputy, who began his speech on this\nwise: \"May it please your Majesty, there are just thirteen reasons why\nHis Honour the Mayor can not be present to welcome you this morning. The\nfirst of these reasons is that he is dead.\" On this the king graciously\ndeclared that this first reason was sufficient, and that he would not\ntrouble the mayor's deputy for the twelve others.\n\nSo with Mr. Southall's argument: one simple result of scientific\nresearch out of many is all that it is needful to state, and this is,\nthat in these later years we have a new and convincing evidence of\nthe existence of prehistoric man in Egypt in his earliest, rudest\nbeginnings; the very same evidence which we find in all other parts of\nthe world which have been carefully examined. This evidence consists\nof stone implements and weapons which have been found in Egypt in\nsuch forms, at such points, and in such positions that when studied in\nconnection with those found in all other parts of the world, from New\nJersey to California, from France to India, and from England to the\nAndaman Islands, they force upon us the conviction that civilization\nin Egypt, as in all other parts of the world, was developed by the same\nslow process of evolution from the rudest beginnings.\n\nIt is true that men learned in Egyptology had discouraged the idea of\nan earlier Stone age in Egypt, and that among these were Lepsius and\nBrugsch; but these men were not trained in prehistoric archaeology;\ntheir devotion to the study of the monuments of Egyptian civilization\nhad evidently drawn them away from sympathy, and indeed from\nacquaintance, with the work of men like Boucher de Perthes, Lartet,\nNilsson, Troyon, and Dawkins. But a new era was beginning. In 1867\nWorsaae called attention to the prehistoric implements found on\nthe borders of Egypt; two years later Arcelin discussed such stone\nimplements found beneath the soil of Sakkara and Gizeh, the very\nfocus of the earliest Egyptian civilization; in the same year Hamy and\nLenormant found such implements washed out from the depths higher up the\nNile at Thebes, near the tombs of the kings; and in the following year\nthey exhibited more flint implements found at various other places.\nCoupled with these discoveries was the fact that Horner and Linant found\na copper knife at twenty-four feet, and pottery at sixty feet, below the\nsurface. In 1872 Dr. Reil, director of the baths at Helouan, near Cairo,\ndiscovered implements of chipped flint; and in 1877. Dr. Jukes Brown\nmade similar discoveries in that region. In 1878 Oscar Fraas, summing up\nthe question, showed that the stone implements were mainly such as are\nfound in the prehistoric deposits of other countries, and that, Zittel\nhaving found them in the Libyan Desert, far from the oases, there was\nreason to suppose that these implements were used before the region\nbecame a desert and before Egypt was civilized. Two years later\nDr. Mook, of Wurzburg, published a work giving the results of his\ninvestigations, with careful drawings of the rude stone implements\ndiscovered by him in the upper Nile Valley, and it was evident that,\nwhile some of these implements differed slightly from those before\nknown, the great mass of them were of the character so common in the\nprehistoric deposits of other parts of the world.\n\nA yet more important contribution to this mass of facts was made by\nProf. Henry Haynes, of Boston, who in the winter of 1877 and 1878 began\na very thorough investigation of the subject, and discovered, a few\nmiles east of Cairo, many flint implements. The significance of Haynes's\ndiscoveries was twofold: First, there were, among these, stone axes like\nthose found in the French drift beds of St. Acheul, showing that the men\nwho made or taught men how to make these in Egypt were passing through\nthe same phase of savagery as that of Quaternary France; secondly, he\nfound a workshop for making these implements, proving that these flint\nimplements were not brought into Egypt by invaders, but were made to\nmeet the necessities of the country. From this first field Prof. Haynes\nwent to Helouan, north of Cairo, and there found, as Dr. Reil had done,\nvarious worked flints, some of them like those discovered by M. Riviere\nin the caves of southern France; thence he went up the Nile to Luxor,\nthe site of ancient Thebes, began a thorough search in the Tertiary\nlimestone hills, and found multitudes of chipped stone implements, some\nof them, indeed, of original forms, but most of forms common in other\nparts of the world under similar circumstances, some of the chipped\nstone axes corresponding closely to those found in the drift beds of\nnorthern France.\n\nAll this seemed to show conclusively that, long ages before the earliest\nperiod of Egyptian civilization of which the monuments of the first\ndynasties give us any trace, mankind in the Nile Valley was going\nthrough the same slow progress from the period when, standing just above\nthe brutes, he defended himself with implements of rudely chipped stone.\n\nBut in 1881 came discoveries which settled the question entirely.\nIn that year General Pitt-Rivers, a Fellow of the Royal Society and\nPresident of the Anthropological Institute, and J. F. Campbell, Fellow\nof the Royal Geographical Society of England, found implements not only\nin alluvial deposits, associated with the bones of the zebra, hyena, and\nother animals which have since retreated farther south, but, at Djebel\nAssas, near Thebes, they found implements of chipped flint in the hard,\nstratified gravel, from six and a half to ten feet below the surface;\nrelics evidently, as Mr. Campbell says, \"beyond calculation older than\nthe oldest Egyptian temples and tombs.\" They certainly proved that\nEgyptian civilization had not issued in its completeness, and all at\nonce, from the hand of the Creator in the time of Mena. Nor was this\nall. Investigators of the highest character and ability--men like Hull\nand Flinders Petrie--revealed geological changes in Egypt requiring\nenormous periods of time, and traces of man's handiwork dating from\na period when the waters in the Nile Valley extended hundreds of feet\nabove the present level. Thus was ended the contention of Mr. Southall.\n\nStill another attack upon the new scientific conclusions came from\nFrance, when in 1883 the Abbe Hamard, Priest of the Oratory, published\nhis Age of Stone and Primitive Man. He had been especially vexed at the\narrangement of prehistoric implements by periods at the Paris Exposition\nof 1878; he bitterly complains of this as having an anti-Christian\ntendency, and rails at science as \"the idol of the day.\" He attacks\nMortillet, one of the leaders in French archaeology, with a great\ndisplay of contempt; speaks of the \"venom\" in books on prehistoric man\ngenerally; complains that the Church is too mild and gentle with such\nmonstrous doctrines; bewails the concessions made to science by some\neminent preachers; and foretells his own martyrdom at the hands of men\nof science.\n\nEfforts like this accomplished little, and a more legitimate attempt was\nmade to resist the conclusions of archaeology by showing that knives of\nstone were used in obedience to a sacred ritual in Egypt for embalming,\nand in Judea for circumcision, and that these flint knives might have\nhad this later origin. But the argument against the conclusions drawn\nfrom this view was triple: First, as we have seen, not only stone\nknives, but axes and other implements of stone similar to those of a\nprehistoric period in western Europe were discovered; secondly,\nthese implements were discovered in the hard gravel drift of a period\nevidently far earlier than that of Mena; and, thirdly, the use of stone\nimplements in Egyptian and Jewish sacred functions within the historic\nperiod, so far from weakening the force of the arguments for the long\nand slow development of Egyptian civilization from the men who used rude\nflint implements to the men who built and adorned the great temples\nof the early dynasties, is really an argument in favour of that long\nevolution. A study of comparative ethnology has made it clear that the\nsacred stone knives and implements of the Egyptian and Jewish priestly\nritual were natural survivals of that previous period. For sacrificial\nor ritual purposes, the knife of stone was considered more sacred than\nthe knife of bronze or iron, simply because it was ancient; just as\nto-day, in India, Brahman priests kindle the sacred fire not with\nmatches or flint and steel, but by a process found in the earliest,\nlowest stages of human culture--by violently boring a pointed stick into\nanother piece of wood until a spark comes; and just as to-day, in Europe\nand America, the architecture of the Middle Ages survives as a special\nreligious form in the erection of our most recent churches, and to such\nan extent that thousands on thousands of us feel that we can not worship\nfitly unless in the midst of windows, decorations, vessels, implements,\nvestments, and ornaments, no longer used for other purposes, but which\nhave survived in sundry branches of the Christian Church, and derived a\nspecial sanctity from the fact that they are of ancient origin.\n\nTaking, then, the whole mass of testimony together, even though a\nplausible or very strong argument against single evidences may be made\nhere and there, the force of its combined mass remains, and leaves both\nthe vast antiquity of man and the evolution of civilization from its\nlowest to its highest forms, as proved by the prehistoric remains of\nEgypt and so many other countries in all parts of the world, beyond\na reasonable doubt. Most important of all, the recent discoveries in\nAssyria have thrown a new light upon the evolution of the dogma of \"the\nfall of man.\" Reverent scholars like George Smith, Sayce, Delitzsch,\nJensen, Schrader, and their compeers have found in the Ninevite records\nthe undoubted source of that form of the fall legend which was adopted\nby the Hebrews and by them transmitted to Christianity.(193)\n\n\n     (193) For Mr. Southall's views, see his Recent Origin of Man, p. 20\nand elsewhere. For Mr. Gosse'e views, see his Omphalos as cited in the\nchapter on Geology in this work. For a summary of the work of Arcelin,\nHamy, Lenormant, Richard, Lubbock, Mook, and Haynes, see Mortillet, Le\nPrehistorique, passim. As to Zittel's discovery, see Oscar Fraas's Aus\ndem Orient, Stuttgart, 1878. As to the striking similarities of the stone\nimplements found in Egypt with those found in the drift and bone\ncaves, see Mook's monograph, Wurzburg, 1880, cited in the next chapter,\nespecially Plates IX, XI, XII. For even more striking reproductions\nof photographs showing this remarkable similarity between Egyptian\nand European chipped stone remains, see H. W. Haynes, Palaeolithic\nImplements in Upper Egypt, Boston, 1881. See also Evans, Ancient Stone\nImplements, chap. i, pp. 8, 9, 44, 102, 316, 329. As to stone implements\nused by priests of Jehovah, priests of Baal, priests of Moloch, priests\nof Odin, and Egyptian priests, as religious survivals, see Cartailhac,\nas above, 6 and 7; also Lartet, in De Luynes, Expedition to the Dead\nSea; also Nilsson, Primitive Inhabitants of Scandanavia, pp. 96, 97;\nalso Sayce, Herodotus, p. 171, note. For the discoveries by Pitt-Rivers,\nsee the Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and\nIreland for 1882, vol. xi, pp. 382 et seq.; and for Campbell's decision\nregarding them, see ibid., pp. 396, 397. For facts summed up in the\nwords, \"It is most probable that Egypt at a remote period passed like\nmany other countries through its stone period,\" see Hilton Price, F. S.\nA., F. G. S., paper in the Journal of the Archaeological Institute of\nGreat Britain and Ireland for 1884, p. 56. Specimens of Palaeolithic\nimplements from Egypt--knives, arrowheads, spearheads, flakes, and\nthe like, both of peculiar and ordinary forms--may be seen in various\nmuseums, but especially in that of Prof. Haynes, of Boston. Some\ninteresting light is also thrown into the subject by the specimens\nobtained by General Wilson and deposited in the Smithsonian Institution\nat Washington. For Abbe Hamard's attack, see his L'Age de la Pierre et\nL'Homme Primitif, Paris, 1883--especially his preface. For the stone\nweapon found in the high drift behind Esneh, see Flinders Petrie,\nHistory of Egypt, chap. i. Of these discoveries by Pitt-Rivers and\nothers, Maspero appears to know nothing.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. THE \"FALL OF MAN\" AND ETHNOLOGY.\n\n\nWe have seen that, closely connected with the main lines of\ninvestigation in archaeology and anthropology, there were other\nresearches throwing much light on the entire subject. In a previous\nchapter we saw especially that Lafitau and Jussieu were among the first\nto collect and compare facts bearing on the natural history of man,\ngathered by travellers in various parts of the earth, thus laying\nfoundations for the science of comparative ethnology. It was soon seen\nthat ethnology had most important bearings upon the question of the\nmaterial, intellectual, moral, and religious evolution of the human\nrace; in every civilized nation, therefore, appeared scholars who began\nto study the characteristics of various groups of men as ascertained\nfrom travellers, and to compare the results thus gained with each other\nand with those obtained by archaeology.\n\nThus, more and more clear became the evidences that the tendency of the\nrace has been upward from low beginnings. It was found that groups\nof men still existed possessing characteristics of those in the early\nperiods of development to whom the drift and caves and shell-heaps\nand pile-dwellings bear witness; groups of men using many of the same\nimplements and weapons, building their houses in the same way, seeking\ntheir food by the same means, enjoying the same amusements, and going\nthrough the same general stages of culture; some being in a condition\ncorresponding to the earlier, some to the later, of those early periods.\n\nFrom all sides thus came evidence that we have still upon the\nearth examples of all the main stages in the development of human\ncivilization; that from the period when man appears little above the\nbrutes, and with little if any religion in any accepted sense of the\nword, these examples can be arranged in an ascending series leading\nto the highest planes which humanity has reached; that philosophic\nobservers may among these examples study existing beliefs, usages, and\ninstitutions back through earlier and earlier forms, until, as a rule,\nthe whole evolution can be easily divined if not fully seen. Moreover,\nthe basis of the whole structure became more and more clear: the fact\nthat \"the lines of intelligence have always been what they are, and have\nalways operated as they do now; that man has progressed from the simple\nto the complex, from the particular to the general.\"\n\nAs this evidence from ethnology became more and more strong, its\nsignificance to theology aroused attention, and naturally most\ndetermined efforts were made to break its force. On the Continent the\ntwo great champions of the Church in this field were De Maistre and De\nBonald; but the two attempts which may be especially recalled as the\nmost influential among English-speaking peoples were those of Whately,\nArchbishop of Dublin, and the Duke of Argyll.\n\nFirst in the combat against these new deductions of science was Whately.\nHe was a strong man, whose breadth of thought and liberality in practice\ndeserve all honour; but these very qualities drew upon him the distrust\nof his orthodox brethren; and, while his writings were powerful in\nthe first half of the present century to break down many bulwarks of\nunreason, he seems to have been constantly in fear of losing touch with\nthe Church, and therefore to have promptly attacked some scientific\nreasonings, which, had he been a layman, not holding a brief for\nthe Church, he would probably have studied with more care and less\nprejudice. He was not slow to see the deeper significance of archaeology\nand ethnology in their relations to the theological conception of \"the\nFall,\" and he set the battle in array against them.\n\nHis contention was, to use his own words, that \"no community ever did\nor ever can emerge unassisted by external helps from a state of utter\nbarbarism into anything that can be called civilization\"; and that, in\nshort, all imperfectly civilized, barbarous, and savage races are but\nfallen descendants of races more fully civilized. This view was urged\nwith his usual ingenuity and vigour, but the facts proved too strong\nfor him: they made it clear, first, that many races were without simple\npossessions, instruments, and arts which never, probably, could have\nbeen lost if once acquired--as, for example, pottery, the bow for\nshooting, various domesticated animals, spinning, the simplest\nprinciples of agriculture, household economy, and the like; and,\nsecondly, it was shown as a simple matter of fact that various savage\nand barbarous tribes HAD raised themselves by a development of means\nwhich no one from outside could have taught them; as in the cultivation\nand improvement of various indigenous plants, such as the potato and\nIndian corn among the Indians of North America; in the domestication of\nvarious animals peculiar to their own regions, such as the llama among\nthe Indians of south America; in the making of sundry fabrics out of\nmaterials and by processes not found among other nations, such as\nthe bark cloth of the Polynesians; and in the development of weapons\npeculiar to sundry localities, but known in no others, such as the\nboomerang in Australia.\n\nMost effective in bringing out the truth were such works as those of Sir\nJohn Lubbock and Tylor; and so conclusive were they that the arguments\nof Whately were given up as untenable by the other of the two great\nchampions above referred to, and an attempt was made by him to form the\ndiminishing number of thinking men supporting the old theological view\non a new line of defence.\n\nThis second champion, the Duke of Argyll, was a man of wide knowledge\nand strong powers in debate, whose high moral sense was amply shown in\nhis adhesion to the side of the American Union in the struggle against\ndisunion and slavery, despite the overwhelming majority against him in\nthe high aristocracy to which he belonged. As an honest man and close\nthinker, the duke was obliged to give up completely the theological view\nof the antiquity of man. The whole biblical chronology as held by the\nuniversal Church, \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" he sacrificed, and\ngave all his powers in this field to support the theory of \"the Fall.\"\nNoblesse oblige: the duke and his ancestors had been for centuries the\nchief pillars of the Church of Scotland, and it was too much to expect\nthat he could break away from a tenet which forms really its \"chief\ncornerstone.\"\n\nAcknowledging the insufficiency of Archbishop Whately's argument, the\nduke took the ground that the lower, barbarous, savage, brutal\nraces were the remains of civilized races which, in the struggle for\nexistence, had been pushed and driven off to remote and inclement parts\nof the earth, where the conditions necessary to a continuance in their\nearly civilization were absent; that, therefore, the descendants of\nprimeval, civilized men degenerated and sank in the scale of culture. To\nuse his own words, the weaker races were \"driven by the stronger to the\nwoods and rocks,\" so that they became \"mere outcasts of the human race.\"\n\nIn answer to this, while it was conceded, first, that there have been\nexamples of weaker tribes sinking in the scale of culture after escaping\nfrom the stronger into regions unfavourable to civilization, and,\nsecondly, that many powerful nations have declined and decayed, it was\nshown that the men in the most remote and unfavourable regions have not\nalways been the lowest in the scale; that men have been frequently found\n\"among the woods and rocks\" in a higher state of civilization than on\nthe fertile plains, such examples being cited as Mexico, Peru, and even\nScotland; and that, while there were many examples of special and local\ndecline, overwhelming masses of facts point to progress as a rule.\n\nThe improbability, not to say impossibility, of many of the conclusions\narrived at by the duke appeared more and more strongly as more became\nknown of the lower tribes of mankind. It was necessary on his theory\nto suppose many things which our knowledge of the human race absolutely\nforbids us to believe: for example, it was necessary to suppose that\nthe Australians or New Zealanders, having once possessed so simple and\nconvenient an art as that of the potter, had lost every trace of it; and\nthat the same tribes, having once had so simple a means of saving labour\nas the spindle or small stick weighted at one end for spinning, had\ngiven it up and gone back to twisting threads with the hand. In fact,\nit was necessary to suppose that one of the main occupations of man from\n\"the beginning\" had been the forgetting of simple methods, processes,\nand implements which all experience in the actual world teaches us are\nnever entirely forgotten by peoples who have once acquired them.\n\nSome leading arguments of the duke were overthrown by simple statements\nof fact. Thus, his instance of the Eskimo as pushed to the verge\nof habitable America, and therefore living in the lowest depths of\nsavagery, which, even if it were true, by no means proved a general\nrule, was deprived of its force by the simple fact that the Eskimos are\nby no means the lowest race on the American continent, and that various\ntribes far more centrally and advantageously placed, as, for instance,\nthose in Brazil, are really inferior to them in the scale of culture.\nAgain, his statement that \"in Africa there appear to be no traces of any\ntime when the natives were not acquainted with the use of iron,\" is met\nby the fact that from the Nile Valley to the Cape of Good Hope we find,\nwherever examination has been made, the same early stone implements\nwhich in all other parts of the world precede the use of iron, some of\nwhich would not have been made had their makers possessed iron. The\nduke also tried to show that there were no distinctive epochs of stone,\nbronze, and iron, by adducing the fact that some stone implements are\nfound even in some high civilizations. This is indeed a fact. We find\nsome few European peasants to-day using stone mallet-heads; but\nthis proves simply that the old stone mallet-heads have survived as\nimplements cheap and effective.\n\nThe argument from Comparative Ethnology in support of the view that the\ntendency of mankind is upward has received strength from many sources.\nComparative Philology shows that in the less civilized, barbarous, and\nsavage races childish forms of speech prevail--frequent reduplications\nand the like, of which we have survivals in the later and even in the\nmost highly developed languages. In various languages, too, we find\nrelics of ancient modes of thought in the simplest words and expressions\nused for arithmetical calculations. Words and phrases for this purpose\nare frequently found to be derived from the words for hands, feet,\nfingers, and toes, just as clearly as in our own language some of\nour simplest measures of length are shown by their names to have been\nmeasures of parts of the human body, as the cubit, the foot, and the\nlike, and therefore to date from a time when exactness was not required.\nTo add another out of many examples, it is found to-day that various\nrude nations go through the simplest arithmetical processes by means\nof pebbles. Into our own language, through the Latin, has come a word\nshowing that our distant progenitors reckoned in this way: the word\nCALCULATE gives us an absolute proof of this. According to the theory\nof the Duke of Argyll, men ages ago used pebbles (CALCULI) in performing\nthe simplest arithmetical calculations because we to-day \"CALCULATE.\" No\nreduction to absurdity could be more thorough. The simple fact must be\nthat we \"calculate\" because our remote ancestors used pebbles in their\narithmetic.\n\nComparative Literature and Folklore also show among peoples of a low\nculture to-day childish modes of viewing nature, and childish ways of\nexpressing the relations of man to nature, such as clearly survive from\na remote ancestry; noteworthy among these are the beliefs in witches and\nfairies, and multitudes of popular and poetic expressions in the most\ncivilized nations.\n\nSo, too, Comparative Ethnography, the basis of Ethnology, shows in\ncontemporary barbarians and savages a childish love of playthings and\ngames, of which we have many survivals.\n\nAll these facts, which were at first unobserved or observed as matters\nof no significance, have been brought into connection with a fact in\nbiology acknowledged alike by all important schools; by Agassiz on one\nhand and by Darwin on the other--namely, as stated by Agassiz, that \"the\nyoung states of each species and group resemble older forms of the same\ngroup,\" or, as stated by Darwin, that \"in two or more groups of animals,\nhowever much they may at first differ from each other in structure and\nhabits, if they pass through closely similar embryonic stages, we may\nfeel almost assured that they have descended from the same parent form,\nand are therefore closely related.\"(194)\n\n\n     (194) For the stone forms given to early bronze axes, etc., see\nNilsson, Primitive Inhabitants of Scandanavia, London, 1868, Lubbock's\nIntroduction, p. 31; and for plates, see Lubbock's Prehistoric Man,\nchap. ii; also Cartailhac, Les Ages Prehistoriques de l'Espagne et du\nPortugal, p. 227. Also Keller, Lake Dwellings; also Troyon, Habitations\nLacustres; also Boyd Dawkins, Early Man in Great Britain, p. 191; also\nLubbock, p. 6; also Lyell, Antiquity of Man,chap. ii. For the cranogs,\netc., in the north of Europe, see Munro, Ancient Scottish Lake\nDwellings, Edinburgh, 1882. For mounds and greater stone constructions\nin the extreme south of Europe, see Cartailhac's work on Spain and\nPortugal above cited, part iii, chap. iii. For the source of Mr.\nSouthall's contention, see Brugsch, Egypt of the Pharoahs. For the two\nsides of the question whether in the lower grades of savagery there is\nreally any recognition of a superior power, or anything which can\nbe called, in any accepted sense, religion, compare Quatrefages with\nLubbock, in works already cited. For a striking but rather ad captandum\neffort to show that there is a moral and religious sense in the very\nlowest of Australian tribes, see one of the discourses of Archbishop\nVaughn on Science and Religion, Baltimore, 1879. For one out of\nmultitiudes of striking and instructive resemblances in ancient\nstone implements and those now in use among sundry savage tribes,\nsee comparison between old Scandanavian arrowheads and those recently\nbrought from Tierra del Fuego, in Nilsson, as above, especially in Plate\nV. For a brief and admirable statement of the arguments on both sides,\nsee Sir J. Lubbock's Dundee paper, given in the appendix to the American\nedition of his Origin of Civilization, etc. For the general argument\nreferred to between Whately and the Duke of Argyll on one side, and\nLubbock on the other, see Lubbock's Dundee paper as above cited; Tylor,\nEarly History of Mankind, especially p. 193; and the Duke of Argyll,\nPrimeval Man, part iv. For difficulties of savages in arithmetic, see\nLubbock, as above, pp. 459 et seq. For a very temperate and judicial\nview of the whole question, see Tylor as above, chaps. vii and xiii. For\na brief summary of the scientific position regarding the stagnation\nand deterioration of races, resulting in the statement that such\ndeterioration \"in no way contradicts the theory that civilization itself\nis developed from low to high stages,\" see Tylor, Anthropology, chap. i.\nFor striking examples of the testimony of language to upward progress,\nsee Tylor, chap. xii.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.  THE \"FALL OF MAN\" AND HISTORY.\n\n\nThe history of art, especially as shown by architecture, in the noblest\nmonuments of the most enlightened nations of antiquity; gives abundant\nproofs of the upward tendency of man from the rudest and simplest\nbeginnings. Many columns of early Egyptian temples or tombs are but\nbundles of Nile reeds slightly conventionalized in stone; the temples of\nGreece, including not only the earliest forms, but the Parthenon\nitself, while in parts showing an evolution out of Egyptian and Assyrian\narchitecture, exhibit frequent reminiscences and even imitations of\nearlier constructions in wood; the medieval cathedrals, while evolved\nout of Roman and Byzantine structures, constantly show unmistakable\nsurvivals of prehistoric construction. (195)\n\n\n     (195) As to evolution in architecture, and especially of Greek forms\nand ornaments out of Egyptian and Assyrian, with survivals in stone\narchitecture of forms obtained in Egypt when reeds were used, and in\nGreece when wood construction prevailed, see Fergusson's Handbook of\nArchitecture, vol. i, pp. 100, 228, 233, and elsewhere; also Otfried\nMuller, Ancient Art and its Remains, English translation, London,\n1852, pp. 219, passim. For a very brief but thorough statement, see A.\nMagnard's paper in the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society,\nOctober, 1889, entitled Reminiscences of Egypt in Doric Architecture.\nOn the general subject, see Hommel, Babylonien, ch. i, and Meyer,\nAlterthum, i, S 199.\n\n\nSo, too, general history has come in, illustrating the unknown from\nthe known: the development of man in the prehistoric period from his\ndevelopment within historic times. Nothing is more evident from history\nthan the fact that weaker bodies of men driven out by stronger do not\nnecessarily relapse into barbarism, but frequently rise, even under the\nmost unfavourable circumstances, to a civilization equal or superior\nto that from which they have been banished. Out of very many examples\nshowing this law of upward development, a few may be taken as typical.\nThe Slavs, who sank so low under the pressure of stronger races that\nthey gave the modern world a new word to express the most hopeless\nservitude, have developed powerful civilizations peculiar to themselves;\nthe barbarian tribes who ages ago took refuge amid the sand-banks and\nmorasses of Holland, have developed one of the world's leading centres\nof civilization; the wretched peasants who about the fifth century took\nrefuge from invading hordes among the lagoons and mud banks of Venetia,\ndeveloped a power in art, arms, and politics which is among the wonders\nof human history; the Puritans, driven from the civilization of Great\nBritain to the unfavourable climate, soil, and circumstances of early\nNew England,--the Huguenots, driven from France, a country admirably\nfitted for the highest growth of civilization, to various countries\nfar less fitted for such growth,--the Irish peasantry, driven in vast\nnumbers from their own island to other parts of the world on the whole\nless fitted to them--all are proofs that, as a rule, bodies of men once\nenlightened, when driven to unfavourable climates and brought under the\nmost depressing circumstances, not only retain what enlightenment they\nhave, but go on increasing it. Besides these, we have such cases as\nthose of criminals banished to various penal colonies, from whose\ndescendants has been developed a better morality; and of pirates, like\nthose of the Bounty, whose descendants, in a remote Pacific island,\nbecame sober, steady citizens. Thousands of examples show the prevalence\nof this same rule--that men in masses do not forget the main gains of\ntheir civilization, and that, in spite of deteriorations, their tendency\nis upward.\n\nAnother class of historic facts also testifies in the most striking\nmanner to this same upward tendency: the decline and destruction\nof various civilizations brilliant but hopelessly vitiated. These\ncatastrophes are seen more and more to be but steps in, this\ndevelopment. The crumbling away of the great ancient civilizations based\nupon despotism, whether the despotism of monarch, priest, or mob--the\ndecline and fall of Roman civilization, for example, which, in his most\nremarkable generalization, Guizot has shown to have been necessary\nto the development of the richer civilization of modern Europe; the\nterrible struggle and loss of the Crusades, which once appeared to be a\nmere catastrophe, but are now seen to have brought in, with the downfall\nof feudalism, the beginnings of the centralizing, civilizing monarchical\nperiod; the French Revolution, once thought a mere outburst of diabolic\npassion, but now seen to be an unduly delayed transition from the\nmonarchical to the constitutional epoch: all show that even widespread\ndeterioration and decline--often, indeed, the greatest political and\nmoral catastrophes--so far from leading to a fall of mankind, tend in\nthe long run to raise humanity to higher planes.\n\nThus, then, Anthropology and its handmaids, Ethnology, Philology,\nand History, have wrought out, beyond a doubt, proofs of the upward\nevolution of humanity since the appearance of man upon our planet.\n\nNor have these researches been confined to progress in man's material\ncondition. Far more important evidences have been found of upward\nevolution in his family, social, moral, intellectual, and religious\nrelations. The light thrown on this subject by such men as Lubbock,\nTylor, Herbert Spencer, Buckle, Draper, Max Muller, and a multitude of\nothers, despite mistakes, haltings, stumblings, and occasional following\nof delusive paths, is among the greatest glories of the century now\nending. From all these investigators in their various fields, holding\nno brief for any system sacred or secular, but seeking truth as truth,\ncomes the same general testimony of the evolution of higher out of\nlower. The process has been indeed slow and painful, but this does not\nprove that it may not become more rapid and less fruitful in sorrow as\nhumanity goes on.(196)\n\n\n     (196) As to the good effects of migration, see Waitz, Introduction to\nAnthropology, London, 1863, p. 345.\n\n\nWhile, then, it is not denied that many instances of retrogression can\nbe found, the consenting voice of unbiased investigators in all lands\nhas declared more and more that the beginnings of our race must have\nbeen low and brutal, and that the tendency has been upward. To combat\nthis conclusion by examples of decline and deterioration here and\nthere has become impossible: as well try to prove that, because in the\nMississippi there are eddies in which the currents flow northward, there\nis no main stream flowing southward; or that, because trees decay and\nfall, there is no law of upward growth from germ to trunk, branches,\nfoliage, and fruit.\n\nA very striking evidence that the theological theory had become\nuntenable was seen when its main supporter in the scientific field,\nVon Martius, in the full ripeness of his powers, publicly declared his\nconversion to the scientific view.\n\nYet, while the tendency of enlightened human thought in recent times is\nunmistakable, the struggle against the older view is not yet ended. The\nbitterness of the Abbe Hamard in France has been carried to similar\nand even greater extremes among sundry Protestant bodies in Europe and\nAmerica. The simple truth of history mates it a necessity, unpleasant\nthough it be, to chronicle two typical examples in the United States.\n\nIn the year 1875 a leader in American industrial enterprise endowed at\nthe capital of a Southern State a university which bore his name. It was\ngiven into the hands of one of the religious sects most powerful in that\nregion, and a bishop of that sect became its president. To its chair\nof Geology was called Alexander Winchell, a scholar who had already\nwon eminence as a teacher and writer in that field, a professor greatly\nbeloved and respected in the two universities with which he had been\nconnected, and a member of the sect which the institution of learning\nabove referred to represented.\n\nBut his relations to this Southern institution were destined to be\nbrief. That his lectures at the Vanderbilt University were learned,\nattractive, and stimulating, even his enemies were forced to admit; but\nhe was soon found to believe that there had been men earlier than the\nperiod as signed to Adam, and even that all the human race are not\ndescended from Adam. His desire was to reconcile science and Scripture,\nand he was now treated by a Methodist Episcopal Bishop in Tennessee just\nas, two centuries before, La Peyrere had been treated, for a similar\neffort, by a Roman Catholic vicar-general in Belgium. The publication of\na series of articles on the subject, contributed by the professor to a\nNorthern religious newspaper at its own request, brought matters to a\nclimax; for, the articles having fallen under the notice of a leading\nSouthwestern organ of the denomination controlling the Vanderbilt\nUniversity, the result was a most bitter denunciation of Prof. Winchell\nand of his views. Shortly afterward the professor was told by Bishop\nMcTyeire that \"our people are of the opinion that such views are\ncontrary to the plan of redemption,\" and was requested by the bishop to\nquietly resign his chair. To this the professor made the fitting reply:\n\"If the board of trustees have the manliness to dismiss me for cause,\nand declare the cause, I prefer that they should do it. No power on\nearth could persuade me to resign.\"\n\n\"We do not propose,\" said the bishop, with quite gratuitous\nsuggestiveness, \"to treat you as the Inquisition treated Galileo.\"\n\n\"But what you propose is the same thing,\" rejoined Dr. Winchell. \"It\nis ecclesiastical proscription for an opinion which must be settled by\nscientific evidence.\"\n\nTwenty-four hours later Dr. Winchell was informed that his chair had\nbeen abolished, and its duties, with its salary, added to those of a\ncolleague; the public were given to understand that the reasons\nwere purely economic; the banished scholar was heaped with official\ncompliments, evidently in hope that he would keep silence.\n\nSuch was not Dr. Winchell's view. In a frank letter to the leading\njournal of the university town he stated the whole matter. The\nintolerance-hating press of the country, religious and secular, did not\nhold its peace. In vain the authorities of the university waited for\nthe storm to blow over. It was evident, at last, that a defence must\nbe made, and a local organ of the sect, which under the editorship of\na fellow-professor had always treated Dr. Winchell's views with the\nluminous inaccuracy which usually characterizes a professor's ideas of a\nrival's teachings, assumed the task. In the articles which followed,\nthe usual scientific hypotheses as to the creation were declared to be\n\"absurd,\" \"vague and unintelligible,\" \"preposterous and gratuitous.\"\nThis new champion stated that \"the objections drawn from the\nfossiliferous strata and the like are met by reference to the analogy of\nAdam and Eve, who presented the phenomena of adults when they were but a\nday old, and by the Flood of Noah and other cataclysms, which, with the\nconstant change of Nature, are sufficient to account for the phenomena\nin question\"!\n\nUnder inspiration of this sort the Tennessee Conference of the religious\nbody in control of the university had already, in October, 1878, given\nutterance to its opinion of unsanctified science as follows: \"This is\nan age in which scientific atheism, having divested itself of the\nhabiliments that most adorn and dignify humanity, walks abroad in\nshameless denudation. The arrogant and impertinent claims of this\n'science, falsely so called,' have been so boisterous and persistent,\nthat the unthinking mass have been sadly deluded; but our university\nalone has had the courage to lay its young but vigorous hand upon the\nmane of untamed Speculation and say, 'We will have no more of this.'\" It\nis a consolation to know how the result, thus devoutly sought, has been\nachieved; for in the \"ode\" sung at the laying of the corner-stone of a\nnew theological building of the same university, in May, 1880, we read:\n\n\n\"Science and Revelation here In perfect harmony appear, Guiding young\nfeet along the road Through grace and Nature up to God.\"\n\n\nIt is also pleasing to know that, while an institution calling itself\na university thus violated the fundamental principles on which any\ninstitution worthy of the name must be based, another institution which\nhas the glory of being the first in the entire North to begin\nsomething like a university organization--the State University of\nMichigan--recalled Dr. Winchell at once to his former professorship, and\nhonoured itself by maintaining him in that position, where, unhampered,\nhe was thereafter able to utter his views in the midst of the largest\nbody of students on the American Continent.\n\nDisgraceful as this history was to the men who drove out Dr. Winchell,\nthey but succeeded, as various similar bodies of men making similar\nefforts have done, in advancing their supposed victim to higher position\nand more commanding influence.(197)\n\n\n     (197) For Dr. Winchell's original statements, see Adamites and\nPre-Adamites, Syracuse, N. Y., 1878. For the first important\ndenunciation of his views, see the St. Louis Christian Advocate, May 22,\n1878. For the conversation with Bishop McTyeire, see Dr. Winchell's\nown account in the Nashville American of July 19, 1878. For the further\ncourse of the attack in the denominational organ of Dr. Winchell's\noppressors, see the Nashville Christian Advocate, April 26, 1879. For\nthe oratorical declaration of the Tennessee Conference upon the\nmatter, see the Nashville American, October 15, 1878; and for the \"ode\"\nregarding the \"harmony of science and revelation\" as supported at the\nuniversity, see the same journal for May 2, 1880\n\n\nA few years after this suppression of earnest Christian thought at an\ninstitution of learning in the western part of our Southern States,\nthere appeared a similar attempt in sundry seaboard States of the South.\n\nAs far back as the year 1857 the Presbyterian Synod of Mississippi\npassed the following resolution:\n\n\"WHEREAS, We live in an age in which the most insidious attacks are made\non revealed religion through the natural sciences, and as it behooves\nthe Church at all times to have men capable of defending the faith once\ndelivered to the saints;\n\n\"RESOLVED, That this presbytery recommend the endowment of a\nprofessorship of Natural Science as connected with revealed religion in\none or more of our theological seminaries.\"\n\nPursuant to this resolution such a chair was established in the\ntheological seminary at Columbia, S.C., and James Woodrow was appointed\nprofessor. Dr. Woodrow seems to have been admirably fitted for the\nposition--a devoted Christian man, accepting the Presbyterian standards\nof faith in which he had been brought up, and at the same time giving\nevery effort to acquaint himself with the methods and conclusions of\nscience. To great natural endowments he added constant labours to arrive\nat the truth in this field. Visiting Europe, he made the acquaintance\nof many of the foremost scientific investigators, became a student\nin university lecture rooms and laboratories, an interested hearer in\nscientific conventions, and a correspondent of leading men of science\nat home and abroad. As a result, he came to the conclusion that the\nhypothesis of evolution is the only one which explains various leading\nfacts in natural science. This he taught, and he also taught that such a\nview is not incompatible with a true view of the sacred Scriptures.\n\nIn 1882 and 1883 the board of directors of the theological seminary,\nin fear that \"scepticism in the world is using alleged discoveries in\nscience to impugn the Word of God,\" requested Prof. Woodrow to state his\nviews in regard to evolution. The professor complied with this request\nin a very powerful address, which was published and widely circulated,\nto such effect that the board of directors shortly afterward passed\nresolutions declaring the theory of evolution as defined by Prof.\nWoodrow not inconsistent with perfect soundness in the faith.\n\nIn the year 1884 alarm regarding Dr. Woodrow's teachings began to show\nitself in larger proportions, and a minority report was introduced into\nthe Synod of South Carolina declaring that \"the synod is called upon\nto decide not upon the question whether the said views of Dr. Woodrow\ncontradict the Bible in its highest and absolute sense, but upon the\nquestion whether they contradict the interpretation of the Bible by the\nPresbyterian Church in the United States.\"\n\nPerhaps a more self-condemnatory statement was never presented, for\nit clearly recognized, as a basis for intolerance, at least a possible\ndifference between \"the interpretation of the Bible by the Presbyterian\nChurch\" and the teachings of \"the Bible in its highest and absolute\nsense.\"\n\nThis hostile movement became so strong that, in spite of the favourable\naction of the directors of the seminary, and against the efforts of\na broad-minded minority in the representative bodies having ultimate\ncharge of the institution, the delegates from the various synods raised\na storm of orthodoxy and drove Dr. Woodrow from his post. Happily, he\nwas at the same time professor in the University of South Carolina in\nthe same city of Columbia, and from his chair in that institution\nhe continued to teach natural science with the approval of the great\nmajority of thinking men in that region; hence, the only effect of the\nattempt to crush him was, that his position was made higher, respect for\nhim deeper, and his reputation wider.\n\nIn spite of attempts by the more orthodox to prevent students of the\ntheological seminary from attending his lectures at the university, they\npersisted in hearing him; indeed, the reputation of heresy seemed to\nenhance his influence.\n\nIt should be borne in mind that the professor thus treated had been one\nof the most respected and beloved university instructors in the South\nduring more than a quarter of a century, and that he was turned out\nof his position with no opportunity for careful defence, and, indeed,\nwithout even the formality of a trial. Well did an eminent but\nthoughtful divine of the Southern Presbyterian Church declare that \"the\nmethod of procedure to destroy evolution by the majority in the Church\nis vicious and suicidal,\" and that \"logical dynamite has been used to\nput out a supposed fire in the upper stories of our house, and all the\nfamily in the house at that.\" Wisely, too, did he refer to the majority\nas \"sowing in the fields of the Church the thorns of its errors, and\ncumbering its path with the debris and ruin of its own folly.\"\n\nTo these recent cases may be added the expulsion of Prof. Toy from\nteaching under ecclesiastical control at Louisville, and his election to\na far more influential chair at Harvard University; the driving out from\nthe American College at Beyrout of the young professors who accepted\nevolution as probable, and the rise of one of them, Mr. Nimr, to a far\nmore commanding position than that which he left--the control of three\nleading journals at Cairo; the driving out of Robertson Smith from his\nposition at Edinburgh, and his reception into the far more important and\ninfluential professorship at the English University of Cambridge; and\nmultitudes of similar cases. From the days when Henry Dunster, the first\nPresident of Harvard College, was driven from his presidency, as Cotton\nMather said, for \"falling into the briers of Antipedobaptism\" until\nnow, the same spirit is shown in all such attempts. In each we have\ngenerally, on one side, a body of older theologians, who since their\nyouth have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, sundry professors\nwho do not wish to rewrite their lectures, and a mass of unthinking\necclesiastical persons of little or no importance save in making up a\nretrograde majority in an ecclesiastical tribunal; on the other side\nwe have as generally the thinking, open-minded, devoted men who have\nlistened to the revelation of their own time as well as of times past,\nand who are evidently thinking the future thought of the world.\n\nHere we have survivals of that same oppression of thought by theology\nwhich has cost the modern world so dear; the system which forced great\nnumbers of professors, under penalty of deprivation, to teach that the\nsun and planets revolve about the earth; that comets are fire-balls\nflung by an angry God at a wicked world; that insanity is diabolic\npossession; that anatomical investigation of the human frame is sin\nagainst the Holy Ghost; that chemistry leads to sorcery; that taking\ninterest for money is forbidden by Scripture; that geology must conform\nto ancient Hebrew poetry. From the same source came in Austria the rule\nof the \"Immaculate Oath,\" under which university professors, long before\nthe dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined by the Church,\nwere obliged to swear to their belief in that dogma before they\nwere permitted to teach even arithmetic or geometry; in England, the\ndenunciation of inoculation against smallpox; in Scotland, the protests\nagainst using chloroform in childbirth as \"vitiating the primal curse\nagainst woman\"; in France, the use in clerical schools of a historical\ntext-book from which Napoleon was left out; and, in America, the use\nof Catholic manuals in which the Inquisition is declared to have been a\npurely civil tribunal, or Protestant manuals in which the Puritans are\nshown to have been all that we could now wish they had been.\n\nSo, too, among multitudes of similar efforts abroad, we have during\ncenturies the fettering of professors at English and Scotch universities\nby test oaths, subscriptions to articles, and catechisms without number.\nIn our own country we have had in a vast multitude of denominational\ncolleges, as the first qualification for a professorship, not ability in\nthe subject to be taught, but fidelity to the particular shibboleth of\nthe denomination controlling the college or university.\n\nHappily, in these days such attempts generally defeat themselves. The\nsupposed victim is generally made a man of mark by persecution, and\nadvanced to a higher and wider sphere of usefulness. In withstanding\nthe march of scientific truth, any Conference, Synod, Board of\nCommissioners, Board of Trustees, or Faculty, is but as a nest of\nfield-mice in the path of a steam plough.\n\nThe harm done to religion in these attempts is far greater than that\ndone to science; for thereby suspicions are widely spread, especially\namong open-minded young men, that the accepted Christian system demands\na concealment of truth, with the persecution of honest investigators,\nand therefore must be false. Well was it said in substance by President\nMcCosh, of Princeton, that no more sure way of making unbelievers in\nChristianity among young men could be devised than preaching to them\nthat the doctrines arrived at by the great scientific thinkers of this\nperiod are opposed to religion.\n\nYet it is but justice here to say that more and more there is evolving\nout of this past history of oppression a better spirit, which is making\nitself manifest with power in the leading religious bodies of the world.\nIn the Church of Rome we have to-day such utterances as those of St.\nGeorge Mivart, declaring that the Church must not attempt to interfere\nwith science; that the Almighty in the Galileo case gave her a distinct\nwarning that the priesthood of science must remain with the men of\nscience. In the Anglican Church and its American daughter we have the\nacts and utterances of such men as Archbishop Tait, Bishop Temple,\nDean Stanley, Dean Farrar, and many others, proving that the deepest\nreligious thought is more and more tending to peace rather than warfare\nwith science; and in the other churches, especially in America, while\nthere is yet much to be desired, the welcome extended in many of them to\nAlexander Winchell, and the freedom given to views like his, augur well\nfor a better state of things in the future.\n\nFrom the science of Anthropology, when rightly viewed as a whole, has\ncome the greatest aid to those who work to advance religion rather than\nto promote any particular system of theology; for Anthropology and its\nsubsidiary sciences show more and more that man, since coming upon the\nearth, has risen, from the period when he had little, if any, idea of\na great power above him, through successive stages of fetichism,\nshamanism, and idolatry, toward better forms of belief, making him more\nand more accessible to nobler forms of religion. The same sciences\nshow, too, within the historic period, the same tendency, and especially\nwithin the events covered by our sacred books, a progress from\nfetichism, of which so many evidences crop out in the early Jewish\nworship as shown in the Old Testament Scriptures, through polytheism,\nwhen Jehovah was but \"a god above all gods,\" through the period when he\nwas \"a jealous God,\" capricious and cruel, until he is revealed in such\ninspired utterances as those of the nobler Psalms, the great passages\nin Isaiah, the sublime preaching of Micah, and, above all, through the\nideal given to the world by Jesus of Nazareth.\n\nWell indeed has an eminent divine of the Church of England in our own\ntime called on Christians to rejoice over this evolution, \"between the\nGod of Samuel, who ordered infants to be slaughtered, and the God of the\nPsalmist, whose tender mercies are over all his works; between the\nGod of the Patriarchs, who was always repenting, and the God of the\nApostles, who is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, with whom\nthere is no variableness nor shadow of turning, between the God of the\nOld Testament, who walked in the garden in the cool of the day, and the\nGod of the New Testament, whom no man hath seen nor can see; between the\nGod of Leviticus, who was so particular about the sacrificial furniture\nand utensils, and the God of the Acts, who dwelleth not in temples made\nwith hands; between the God who hardened Pharaoh's heart, and the God\nwho will have all men to be saved; between the God of Exodus, who is\nmerciful only to those who love him, and the God of Christ--the heavenly\nFather--who is kind unto the unthankful and the evil.\"\n\nHowever overwhelming, then, the facts may be which Anthropology,\nHistory, and their kindred sciences may, in the interest of simple\ntruth, establish against the theological doctrine of \"the Fall\"; however\ncompletely they may fossilize various dogmas, catechisms, creeds,\nconfessions, \"plans of salvation\" and \"schemes of redemption,\" which\nhave been evolved from the great minds of the theological period:\nscience, so far from making inroads on religion, or even upon our\nChristian development of it, will strengthen all that is essential in\nit, giving new and nobler paths to man's highest aspirations. For the\none great, legitimate, scientific conclusion of anthropology is, that,\nmore and more, a better civilization of the world, despite all its\nsurvivals of savagery and barbarism, is developing men and women on whom\nthe declarations of the nobler Psalms, of Isaiah, of Micah, the Sermon\non the Mount, the first great commandment, and the second, which is\nlike unto it, St. Paul's praise of charity and St. James's definition\nof \"pure religion and undefiled,\" can take stronger hold for the more\neffective and more rapid uplifting of our race.(198)\n\n\n     (198) For the resolution of the Presbyterian Synod of Mississippi in\n1857, see Prof. Woodrow's speech before the Synod of South Carolina,\nOctober 27 and 28, 1884, p. 6. As to the action of the Board of\nDirectors of the Theological Seminary of Columbia, see ibid. As to the\nminority report in the Synod of South Carolina, see ibid., p. 24. For\nthe pithy sentences regarding the conduct of the majority in the synods\ntoward Dr. Woodrow, see the Rev. Mr. Flynn's article in the Southern\nPresbyterian Review for April, 1885, p. 272, and elsewhere. For the\nrestrictions regarding the teaching of the Copernican theory and the\ntrue doctrine of comets in German universities, see various histories of\nastronomy, especially Madler. For the immaculate oath (Immaculaten-Eid)\nas enforced upon the Austrian professors, see Luftkandl, Die\nJosephinischen Ideen. For the effort of the Church in France, after the\nrestoration of the Bourbons, to teach a history of that country from\nwhich the name of Napoleon should be left out, see Father Loriquet's\nfamous Histoire de France a l'Usage de la Jeunesse, Lyon, 1820, vol.\nii, see especially table of contents at the end. The book bears on its\ntitle-page the well known initials of the Jesuit motto, A. M. D. G. (Ad\nMajorem Dei Gloriam). For examples in England and Scotland, see various\nEnglish histories, and especially Buckle's chapters on Scotland. For a\nlonger collection of examples showing the suppression of anything like\nunfettered thought upon scientific subjects in American universities,\nsee Inaugural Address at the Opening of Cornell University, by the\nauthor of these chapters. For the citation regarding the evolution of\nbetter and nobler ideas of God, see Church and Creed: Sermons preached\nin the Chapel of the Foundling Hospital, London, by A. W. Momerie,\nM. A., LL. D., Professor of Logic and Metaphysics in King's College,\nLondon, 1890. For a very vigorous utterance on the other side, see a\nrecent charge of the Bishop of Gloucester.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. FROM \"THE PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR\" TO METEOROLOGY\n\n\n\n\nI. GROWTH OF A THEOLOGICAL THEORY.\n\n\nThe popular beliefs of classic antiquity regarding storms, thunder,\nand lightning, took shape in myths representing Vulcan as forging\nthunderbolts, Jupiter as flinging them at his enemies, Aeolus intrusting\nthe winds in a bag to Aeneas, and the like. An attempt at their further\ntheological development is seen in the Pythagorean statement that\nlightnings are intended to terrify the damned in Tartarus.\n\nBut at a very early period we see the beginning of a scientific view. In\nGreece, the Ionic philosophers held that such phenomena are obedient to\nlaw. Plato, Aristotle, and many lesser lights, attempted to account\nfor them on natural grounds; and their explanations, though crude, were\nbased upon observation and thought. In Rome, Lucretius, Seneca, Pliny,\nand others, inadequate as their statements were, implanted at least the\ngerms of a science. But, as the Christian Church rose to power,\nthis evolution was checked; the new leaders of thought found, in the\nScriptures recognized by them as sacred, the basis for a new view, or\nrather for a modification of the old view.\n\nThis ending of a scientific evolution based upon observation and\nreason, and this beginning of a sacred science based upon the letter of\nScripture and on theology, are seen in the utterances of various fathers\nin the early Church. As to the general features of this new development,\nTertullian held that sundry passages of Scripture prove lightning\nidentical with hell-fire; and this idea was transmitted from generation\nto generation of later churchmen, who found an especial support\nof Tertullian's view in the sulphurous smell experienced during\nthunderstorms. St. Hilary thought the firmament very much lower than the\nheavens, and that it was created not only for the support of the upper\nwaters, but also for the tempering of our atmosphere.(199) St. Ambrose\nheld that thunder is caused by the winds breaking through the solid\nfirmament, and cited from the prophet Amos the sublime passage regarding\n\"Him that establisheth the thunders.\"(200) He shows, indeed, some\nconception of the true source of rain; but his whole reasoning is\nlimited by various scriptural texts. He lays great stress upon the\nfirmament as a solid outer shell of the universe: the heavens he holds\nto be not far outside this outer shell, and argues regarding their\ncharacter from St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians and from the one\nhundred and forty-eighth Psalm. As to \"the waters which are above the\nfirmament,\" he takes up the objection of those who hold that, this\noutside of the universe being spherical, the waters must slide off it,\nespecially if the firmament revolves; and he points out that it is by\nno means certain that the OUTSIDE of the firmament IS spherical, and\ninsists that, if it does revolve, the water is just what is needed to\nlubricate and cool its axis.\n\n\n     (199) For Tertullian, see the Apol. contra gentes, c. 47; also Augustin\nde Angelis, Lectiones Meteorologicae, p. 64. For Hilary, see In Psalm\nCXXXV. (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. ix, p. 773).\n\n\n     (200) \"Firmans tonitrua\" (Amos iv, 13); the phrase does not appear in\nour version.\n\n\nSt. Jerome held that God at the Creation, having spread out the\nfirmament between heaven and earth, and having separated the upper\nwaters from the lower, caused the upper waters to be frozen into ice,\nin order to keep all in place. A proof of this view Jerome found in\nthe words of Ezekiel regarding \"the crystal stretched above the\ncherubim.\"(201)\n\n\n     (201) For Ambrose, see the Hexaemeron, lib. ii, cap. 3,4; lib. iii, cap.\n5 (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. xiv, pp. 148-150, 153, 165). The passage\nas to lubrication of the heavenly axis is as follows: \"Deinde cum ispi\ndicant volvi orbem coeli stellis ardentibus refulgentem, nonne divina\nprovidentia necessario prospexit, ut intra orbem coeli, et supra orbem\nredundaret aqua, quae illa ferventis axis incendia temperaret?\" For\nJerome, see his Epistola, lxix, cap. 6 (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. xxii,\np.659).\n\n\nThe germinal principle in accordance with which all these theories were\nevolved was most clearly proclaimed to the world by St. Augustine in his\nfamous utterance: \"Nothing is to be accepted save on the authority of\nScripture, since greater is that authority than all the powers of the\nhuman mind.\"(202) No treatise was safe thereafter which did not breathe\nthe spirit and conform to the letter of this maxim. Unfortunately, what\nwas generally understood by the \"authority of Scripture\" was the tyranny\nof sacred books imperfectly transcribed, viewed through distorting\nsuperstitions, and frequently interpreted by party spirit.\n\n\n     (202) \"Major est quippe Scripturae hujas auctoritas, quam omnis humani\ningenii capacitas.\"--Augustine, De Genesi ad Lit., lib. ii, cap. 5\n(Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. xxxiv, pp. 266, 267). Or, as he is cited by\nVincent of Beauvais (Spec. Nat., lib. iv, 98): \"Non est aliquid temere\ndiffiniendum, sed quantum Scriptura dicit accipiendum, cujus major est\nauctoritas quam omnis humani ingenii capacitas.\"\n\n\nFollowing this precept of St. Augustine there were developed, in every\nfield, theological views of science which have never led to a single\ntruth--which, without exception, have forced mankind away from the\ntruth, and have caused Christendom to stumble for centuries into abysses\nof error and sorrow. In meteorology, as in every other science with\nwhich he dealt, Augustine based everything upon the letter of the sacred\ntext; and it is characteristic of the result that this man, so great\nwhen untrammelled, thought it his duty to guard especially the whole\ntheory of the \"waters above the heavens.\"\n\nIn the sixth century this theological reasoning was still further\ndeveloped, as we have seen, by Cosmas Indicopleustes. Finding a sanction\nfor the old Egyptian theory of the universe in the ninth chapter of\nHebrews, he insisted that the earth is a flat parallelogram, and that\nfrom its outer edges rise immense walls supporting the firmament; then,\nthrowing together the reference to the firmament in Genesis and the\noutburst of poetry in the Psalms regarding the \"waters that be above\nthe heavens,\" he insisted that over the terrestrial universe are\nsolid arches bearing a vault supporting a vast cistern \"containing\nthe waters\"; finally, taking from Genesis the expression regarding\nthe \"windows of heaven,\" he insisted that these windows are opened and\nclosed by the angels whenever the Almighty wishes to send rain upon the\nearth or to withhold it.\n\nThis was accepted by the universal Church as a vast contribution to\nthought; for several centuries it was the orthodox doctrine, and various\nleaders in theology devoted themselves to developing and supplementing\nit.\n\nAbout the beginning of the seventh century, Isidore, Bishop of Seville,\nwas the ablest prelate in Christendom, and was showing those great\nqualities which led to his enrolment among the saints of the Church. His\ntheological view of science marks an epoch. As to the \"waters above the\nfirmament,\" Isidore contends that they must be lower than, the uppermost\nheaven, though higher than the lower heaven, because in the one hundred\nand forty-eighth Psalm they are mentioned AFTER the heavenly bodies\nand the \"heaven of heavens,\" but BEFORE the terrestrial elements. As to\ntheir purpose, he hesitates between those who held that they were stored\nup there by the prescience of God for the destruction of the world at\nthe Flood, as the words of Scripture that \"the windows of heaven were\nopened\" seemed to indicate, and those who held that they were kept there\nto moderate the heat of the heavenly bodies. As to the firmament, he is\nin doubt whether it envelops the earth \"like an eggshell,\" or is merely\nspread over it \"like a curtain\"; for he holds that the passage in the\none hundred and fourth Psalm may be used to support either view.\n\nHaving laid these scriptural foundations, Isidore shows considerable\npower of thought; indeed, at times, when he discusses the rainbow, rain,\nhail, snow, and frost, his theories are rational, and give evidence\nthat, if he could have broken away from his adhesion to the letter of\nScripture, he might have given a strong impulse to the evolution of a\ntrue science.(203)\n\n\n     (203) For Cosmas, see his Topographia Christiana (in Montfaucon,\nCollectio nova patrum, vol. ii), and the more complete account of his\ntheory given in the chapter on Geography in this work. For Isidore, see\nthe Etymologiae, lib. xiii, cap. 7-9, De ordine creaturarum, cap. 3, 4,\nand De natura rerum, cap. 29, 30. (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. lxxxii, pp.\n476, 477, vol. lxxxiii, pp. 920-922, 1001-1003).\n\n\nAbout a century later appeared, at the other extremity of Europe, the\nsecond in the trio of theological men of science in the early Middle\nAges--Bede the Venerable. The nucleus of his theory also is to be found\nin the accepted view of the \"firmament\" and of the \"waters above the\nheavens,\" derived from Genesis. The firmament he holds to be spherical,\nand of a nature subtile and fiery; the upper heavens, he says, which\ncontain the angels, God has tempered with ice, lest they inflame the\nlower elements. As to the waters placed above the firmament, lower than\nthe spiritual heavens, but higher than all corporeal creatures, he says,\n\"Some declare that they were stored there for the Deluge, but others,\nmore correctly, that they are intended to temper the fire of the stars.\"\nHe goes on with long discussions as to various elements and forces in\nNature, and dwells at length upon the air, of which he says that the\nupper, serene air is over the heavens; while the lower, which is coarse,\nwith humid exhalations, is sent off from the earth, and that in this are\nlightning, hail, snow, ice, and tempests, finding proof of this in the\none hundred and forty-eighth Psalm, where these are commanded to \"praise\nthe Lord from the earth.\"(204)\n\n\n     (204) See Bede, De natura rerum (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. xc).\n\n\nSo great was Bede's authority, that nearly all the anonymous\nspeculations of the next following centuries upon these subjects were\neventually ascribed to him. In one of these spurious treatises an\nattempt is made to get new light upon the sources of the waters above\nthe heavens, the main reliance being the sheet containing the animals\nlet down from heaven, in the vision of St. Peter. Another of these\ntreatises is still more curious, for it endeavours to account for\nearthquakes and tides by means of the leviathan mentioned in Scripture.\nThis characteristic passage runs as follows: \"Some say that the earth\ncontains the animal leviathan, and that he holds his tail after a\nfashion of his own, so that it is sometimes scorched by the sun,\nwhereupon he strives to get hold of the sun, and so the earth is shaken\nby the motion of his indignation; he drinks in also, at times, such huge\nmasses of the waves that when he belches them forth all the seas feel\ntheir effect.\" And this theological theory of the tides, as caused by\nthe alternate suction and belching of leviathan, went far and wide.(205)\n\n\n     (205) See the treatise De mundi constitutione, in Bede's Opera (Migne,\nPatr. Lat., vol. xc, p. 884).\n\n\nIn the writings thus covered with the name of Bede there is much showing\na scientific spirit, which might have come to something of permanent\nvalue had it not been hampered by the supposed necessity of conforming\nto the letter of Scripture. It is as startling as it is refreshing to\nhear one of these medieval theorists burst out as follows against those\nwho are content to explain everything by the power of God: \"What is more\npitiable than to say that a thing IS, because God is able to do it, and\nnot to show any reason why it is so, nor any purpose for which it is so;\njust as if God did everything that he is able to do! You talk like one\nwho says that God is able to make a calf out of a log. But DID he ever\ndo it? Either, then, show a reason why a thing is so, or a purpose\nwherefore it is so, or else cease to declare it so.\"(206)\n\n\n     (206) For this remonstrance, see the Elementa philosophiae, in Bede's\nOpera (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol xc, p. 1139). This treatise, which has\nalso been printed, under the title of De philosophia mundi, among the\nworks of Honorius of Autun, is believed by modern scholars (Haureau,\nWerner, Poole) to be the production of William of Conches.\n\n\nThe most permanent contribution of Bede to scientific thought in this\nfield was his revival of the view that the firmament is made of ice; and\nhe supported this from the words in the twenty-sixth chapter of Job,\n\"He bindeth up the waters in his thick cloud, and the cloud is not rent\nunder them.\"\n\nAbout the beginning of the ninth century appeared the third in that\ntriumvirate of churchmen who were the oracles of sacred science\nthroughout the early Middle Ages--Rabanus Maurus, Abbot of Fulda and\nArchbishop of Mayence. Starting, like all his predecessors, from the\nfirst chapter of Genesis, borrowing here and there from the ancient\nphilosophers, and excluding everything that could conflict with the\nletter of Scripture, he follows, in his work upon the universe, his\ntwo predecessors, Isidore and Bede, developing especially St. Jerome's\ntheory, drawn from Ezekiel, that the firmament is strong enough to hold\nup the \"waters above the heavens,\" because it is made of ice.\n\nFor centuries the authority of these three great teachers was\nunquestioned, and in countless manuals and catechisms their doctrine was\ntranslated and diluted for the common mind. But about the second quarter\nof the twelfth century a priest, Honorius of Autun, produced several\ntreatises which show that thought on this subject had made some little\nprogress. He explained the rain rationally, and mainly in the modern\nmanner; with the thunder he is less successful, but insists that the\nthunderbolt \"is not stone, as some assert.\" His thinking is vigorous\nand independent. Had theorists such as he been many, a new science could\nhave been rapidly evolved, but the theological current was too strong.\n(207)\n\n\n     (207) For Rabanus Maurus, see the Comment. in Genesim and De Universo\n(Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. cvii, cxi). For a charmingly naive example of\nthe primers referred to, see the little Anglo-Saxon manual of astronomy,\nsometimes attributed to Aelfric; it is in the vernacular, but is\ntranslated in Wright's Popular Treatises on Science during the Middle\nAges. Bede is, of course, its chief source. For Honorius, see De\nimagine mundi and Hexaemeron (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. clxxii). The De\nphilosophia mundi, the most rational of all, is, however, believed by\nmodern scholars to be unjustly ascribed to him. See note above.\n\n\nThe strength of this current which overwhelmed the thought of Honorius\nis seen again in the work of the Dominican monk, John of San Geminiano,\nwho in the thirteenth century gave forth his Summa de Exemplis for the\nuse of preachers in his order. Of its thousand pages, over two hundred\nare devoted to illustrations drawn from the heavens and the elements.\nA characteristic specimen is his explanation of the Psalmist's phrase,\n\"The arrows of the thunder.\" These, he tells us, are forged out of a dry\nvapour rising from the earth and kindled by the heat of the upper air,\nwhich then, coming into contact with a cloud just turning into rain,\n\"is conglutinated like flour into dough,\" but, being too hot to be\nextinguished, its particles become merely sharpened at the lower end,\nand so blazing arrows, cleaving and burning everything they touch.(208)\n\n\n     (208) See Joannes a S. Geminiano, Summa, c. 75.\n\n\nBut far more important, in the thirteenth century, was the fact that the\nmost eminent scientific authority of that age, Albert the Great, Bishop\nof Ratisbon, attempted to reconcile the speculations of Aristotle\nwith theological views derived from the fathers. In one very important\nrespect he improved upon the meteorological views of his great master.\nThe thunderbolt, he says, is no mere fire, but the product of black\nclouds containing much mud, which, when it is baked by the intense heat,\nforms a fiery black or red stone that falls from the sky, tearing\nbeams and crushing walls in its course: such he has seen with his own\neyes.(209)\n\n\n     (209) See Albertus Magnus, II Sent., Op., vol. xv, p. 137, a. (cited\nby Heller, Gesch. d. Physik, vol. i, p. 184) and his Liber Methaurorum,\nIII, iv, 18 (of which I have used the edition of Venice, 1488).\n\n\nThe monkish encyclopedists of the later Middle Ages added little to\nthese theories. As we glance over the pages of Vincent of Beauvais,\nthe monk Bartholomew, and William of Conches, we note only a growing\ndeference to the authority of Aristotle as supplementing that of Isidore\nand Bede and explaining sacred Scripture. Aristotle is treated like\na Church father, but extreme care is taken not to go beyond the great\nmaxim of St. Augustine; then, little by little, Bede and Isidore\nfall into the background, Aristotle fills the whole horizon, and his\nutterances are second in sacredness only to the text of Holy Writ.\n\nA curious illustration of the difficulties these medieval scholars had\nto meet in reconciling the scientific theories of Aristotle with the\nletter of the Bible is seen in the case of the rainbow. It is to the\nhonour of Aristotle that his conclusions regarding the rainbow, though\nslightly erroneous, were based upon careful observation and evolved by\nreasoning alone; but his Christian commentators, while anxious to follow\nhim, had to bear in mind the scriptural statement that God had created\nthe rainbow as a sign to Noah that there should never again be a\nFlood on the earth. Even so bold a thinker as Cardinal d'Ailly, whose\nspeculations as to the geography of the earth did so much afterward in\nstimulating Columbus, faltered before this statement, acknowledging that\nGod alone could explain it; but suggested that possibly never before the\nDeluge had a cloud been suffered to take such a position toward the sun\nas to cause a rainbow.\n\nThe learned cardinal was also constrained to believe that certain stars\nand constellations have something to do in causing the rain, since these\nwould best explain Noah's foreknowledge of the Deluge. In connection\nwith this scriptural doctrine of winds came a scriptural doctrine of\nearthquakes: they were believed to be caused by winds issuing from the\nearth, and this view was based upon the passage in the one hundred and\nthirty-fifth Psalm, \"He bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.\"(210)\n\n\n     (210) For D'Ailly, see his Concordia astronomicae veritatis cum\ntheologia (Paris, 1483--in the Imago mundi--and Venice, 1490); also\nEck's commentary on Aristotle's Meteorologica (Ausburg, 1519), lib. ii,\nnota 2; also Reisch, Margarita philosophica, lib. ix, c. 18.\n\n\nSuch were the main typical attempts during nearly fourteen centuries to\nbuild up under theological guidance and within scriptural limitations a\nsacred science of meteorology. But these theories were mainly evolved\nin the effort to establish a basis and general theory of phenomena: it\nstill remained to account for special manifestations, and here came a\ntwofold development of theological thought.\n\nOn one hand, these phenomena were attributed to the Almighty, and, on\nthe other, to Satan. As to the first of these theories, we constantly\nfind the Divine wrath mentioned by the earlier fathers as the cause of\nlightning, hailstorms, hurricanes, and the like.\n\nIn the early days of Christianity we see a curious struggle between\npagan and Christian belief upon this point. Near the close of the second\ncentury the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, in his effort to save the empire,\nfought a hotly contested battle with the Quadi, in what is now Hungary.\nWhile the issue of this great battle was yet doubtful there came\nsuddenly a blinding storm beating into the faces of the Quadi, and this\ngave the Roman troops the advantage, enabling Marcus Aurelius to win a\ndecisive victory. Votaries of each of the great religions claimed that\nthis storm was caused by the object of their own adoration. The pagans\ninsisted that Jupiter had sent the storm in obedience to their prayers,\nand on the Antonine Column at Rome we may still see the figure of\nOlympian Jove casting his thunderbolts and pouring a storm of rain from\nthe open heavens against the Quadi. On the other hand, the Christians\ninsisted that the storm had been sent by Jehovah in obedience to THEIR\nprayers; and Tertullian, Eusebius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Jerome\nwere among those who insisted upon this meteorological miracle; the\nfirst two, indeed, in the fervour of their arguments for its reality,\nallowing themselves to be carried considerably beyond exact historical\ntruth.(211)\n\n\n     (211) For the authorities, pagan and Christian, see the note of\nMerivale, in his History of the Romans under the Empire, chap. lxviii.\nHe refers for still fuller citations to Fynes Clinton's Fasti Rom., p.\n24.\n\n\nAs time went on, the fathers developed this view more and more from\nvarious texts in the Jewish and Christian sacred books, substituting for\nJupiter flinging his thunderbolts the Almighty wrapped in thunder and\nsending forth his lightnings. Through the Middle Ages this was fostered\nuntil it came to be accepted as a mere truism, entering into all\nmedieval thinking, and was still further developed by an attempt to\nspecify the particular sins which were thus punished. Thus even the\nrational Florentine historian Villani ascribed floods and fires to the\n\"too great pride of the city of Florence and the ingratitude of the\ncitizens toward God,\" which, \"of course,\" says a recent historian,\n\"meant their insufficient attention to the ceremonies of religion.\"(212)\n\n\n     (212) See Trollope, History of Florence, vol. i, p. 64.\n\n\nIn the thirteenth century the Cistercian monk, Caesarius of Heisterbach,\npopularized the doctrine in central Europe. His rich collection of\nanecdotes for the illustration of religious truths was the favourite\nrecreative reading in the convents for three centuries, and exercised\ngreat influence over the thought of the later Middle Ages. In this work\nhe relates several instances of the Divine use of lightning, both\nfor rescue and for punishment. Thus he tells us how the steward\n(cellerarius) of his own monastery was saved from the clutch of a robber\nby a clap of thunder which, in answer to his prayer, burst suddenly\nfrom the sky and frightened the bandit from his purpose: how, in a\nSaxon theatre, twenty men were struck down, while a priest escaped,\nnot because he was not a greater sinner than the rest, but because the\nthunderbolt had respect for his profession! It is Cesarius, too, who\ntells us the story of the priest of Treves, struck by lightning in his\nown church, whither he had gone to ring the bell against the storm, and\nwhose sins were revealed by the course of the lightning, for it tore his\nclothes from him and consumed certain parts of his body, showing that\nthe sins for which he was punished were vanity and unchastity.(213)\n\n\n     (213) See Caesarius Heisterbacensis, Dialogus miraculorum, lib. x, c.\n28-30.\n\n\nThis mode of explaining the Divine interference more minutely is\ndeveloped century after century, and we find both Catholics and\nProtestants assigning as causes of unpleasant meteorological phenomena\nwhatever appears to them wicked or even unorthodox. Among the English\nReformers, Tyndale quotes in this kind of argument the thirteenth\nchapter of I. Samuel, showing that, when God gave Israel a king, it\nthundered and rained. Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Bale, and Bishop\nPilkington insisted on the same view. In Protestant Germany, about the\nsame period, Plieninger took a dislike to the new Gregorian calendar and\npublished a volume of Brief Reflections, in which he insisted that\nthe elements had given utterance to God's anger against it, calling\nattention to the fact that violent storms raged over almost all Germany\nduring the very ten days which the Pope had taken out for the correction\nof the year, and that great floods began with the first days of the\ncorrected year.(214)\n\n\n     (214) For Tyndale, see his Doctrinal Treatises, p. 194, and for\nWhitgift, see his Works, vol. ii, pp. 477-483; Bale, Works, pp.\n244, 245; and Pilkington, Works, pp. 177, 536 (all in Parker Society\nPublications). Bishop Bale cites especially Job xxxviii, Ecclesiasticus\nxiii, and Revelation viii, as supporting the theory. For Plieninger's\nwords, see Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, vol. v, p. 350.\n\n\nEarly in the seventeenth century, Majoli, Bishop of Voltoraria, in\nsouthern Italy, produced his huge work Dies Canicularii, or Dog Days,\nwhich remained a favourite encyclopedia in Catholic lands for over a\nhundred years. Treating of thunder and lightning, he compares them\nto bombs against the wicked, and says that the thunderbolt is \"an\nexhalation condensed and cooked into stone,\" and that \"it is not to be\ndoubted that, of all instruments of God's vengeance, the thunderbolt is\nthe chief\"; that by means of it Sennacherib and his army were consumed;\nthat Luther was struck by lightning in his youth as a caution against\ndeparting from the Catholic faith; that blasphemy and Sabbath-breaking\nare the sins to which this punishment is especially assigned, and\nhe cites the case of Dathan and Abiram. Fifty years later the Jesuit\nStengel developed this line of thought still further in four thick\nquarto volumes on the judgments of God, adding an elaborate schedule for\nthe use of preachers in the sermons of an entire year. Three chapters\nwere devoted to thunder, lightning, and storms. That the author teaches\nthe agency in these of diabolical powers goes without saying; but this\ncan only act, he declares, by Divine permission, and the thunderbolt is\nalways the finger of God, which rarely strikes a man save for his sins,\nand the nature of the special sin thus punished may be inferred from the\nbodily organs smitten. A few years later, in Protestant Swabia, Pastor\nGeorg Nuber issued a volume of \"weather-sermons,\" in which he discusses\nnearly every sort of elemental disturbances--storms, floods, droughts,\nlightning, and hail. These, he says, come direct from God for human\nsins, yet no doubt with discrimination, for there are five sins which\nGod especially punishes with lightning and hail--namely, impenitence,\nincredulity, neglect of the repair of churches, fraud in the payment\nof tithes to the clergy, and oppression of subordinates, each of which\npoints he supports with a mass of scriptural texts.(215)\n\n\n     (215) For Majoli, see Dies Can., I, i; for Stengel, see the De judiciis\ndivinis, vol. ii, pp. 15-61, and especially the example of the impurus\net saltator sacerdos, fulmine castratus, pp. 26, 27. For Nuber, see his\nConciones meteoricae, Ulm, 1661.\n\n\nThis doctrine having become especially precious both to Catholics and to\nProtestants, there were issued handbooks of prayers against bad weather:\namong these was the Spiritual Thunder and Storm Booklet, produced in\n1731 by a Protestant scholar, Stoltzlin, whose three or four hundred\npages of prayer and song, \"sighs for use when it lightens fearfully,\"\nand \"cries of anguish when the hailstorm is drawing on,\" show a\nwonderful adaptability to all possible meteorological emergencies. The\npreface of this volume is contributed by Prof. Dilherr, pastor of the\ngreat church of St. Sebald at Nuremberg, who, in discussing the Divine\npurposes of storms, adds to the three usually assigned--namely, God's\nwish to manifest his power, to display his anger, and to drive sinners\nto repentance--a fourth, which, he says, is that God may show us \"with\nwhat sort of a stormbell he will one day ring in the last judgment.\"\n\nAbout the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century we find,\nin Switzerland, even the eminent and rational Professor of Mathematics,\nScheuchzer, publishing his Physica Sacra, with the Bible as a basis, and\nforced to admit that the elements, in the most literal sense, utter the\nvoice of God. The same pressure was felt in New England. Typical are\nthe sermons of Increase Mather on The Voice of God in Stormy Winds. He\nespecially lays stress on the voice of God speaking to Job out of the\nwhirlwind, and upon the text, \"Stormy wind fulfilling his word.\" He\ndeclares, \"When there are great tempests, the angels oftentimes have a\nhand therein,... yea, and sometimes evil angels.\" He gives several cases\nof blasphemers struck by lightning, and says, \"Nothing can be more\ndangerous for mortals than to contemn dreadful providences, and, in\nparticular, dreadful tempests.\"\n\nHis distinguished son, Cotton Mather, disentangled himself somewhat from\nthe old view, as he had done in the interpretation of comets. In his\nChristian Philosopher, his Thoughts for the Day of Rain, and his Sermon\npreached at the Time of the Late Storm (in 1723), he is evidently\ntending toward the modern view. Yet, from time to time, the older view\nhas reasserted itself, and in France, as recently as the year 1870, we\nfind the Bishop of Verdun ascribing the drought afflicting his diocese\nto the sin of Sabbath-breaking.(216)\n\n\n     (216) For Stoltzlin, see his Geistliches Donner- und Wetter-Buchlein\n(Zurich, 1731). For Increase Mather, see his The Voice of God, etc.\n(Boston, 1704). This rare volume is in the rich collection of the\nAmerican Antiquarian Society at Worcester. For Cotton Mather's view, see\nthe chapter From Signs and Wonders to Law, in this work. For the Bishop\nof Verdun, see the Semaine relig. de Lorraine, 1879, p. 445 (cited by\n\"Paul Parfait,\" in his Dossier des Pelerinages, pp. 141-143).\n\n\nThis theory, which attributed injurious meteorological phenomena mainly\nto the purposes of God, was a natural development, and comparatively\nharmless; but at a very early period there was evolved another theory,\nwhich, having been ripened into a doctrine, cost the earth dear indeed.\nNever, perhaps, in the modern world has there been a dogma more prolific\nof physical, mental, and moral agony throughout whole nations and during\nwhole centuries. This theory, its development by theology, its fearful\nresults to mankind, and its destruction by scientific observation and\nthought, will next be considered.\n\n\n\n\nII. DIABOLIC AGENCY IN STORMS.\n\n\nWhile the fathers and schoolmen were labouring to deduce a science of\nmeteorology from our sacred books, there oozed up in European society a\nmass of traditions and observances which had been lurking since the days\nof paganism; and, although here and there appeared a churchman to oppose\nthem, the theologians and ecclesiastics ere long began to adopt them and\nto clothe them with the authority of religion.\n\nBoth among the pagans of the Roman Empire and among the barbarians of\nthe North the Christian missionaries had found it easier to prove the\nnew God supreme than to prove the old gods powerless. Faith in the\nmiracles of the new religion seemed to increase rather than to diminish\nfaith in the miracles of the old; and the Church at last began admitting\nthe latter as facts, but ascribing them to the devil. Jupiter and Odin\nsank into the category of ministers of Satan, and transferred to\nthat master all their former powers. A renewed study of Scripture by\ntheologians elicited overwhelming proofs of the truth of this doctrine.\nStress was especially laid on the declaration of Scripture, \"The gods of\nthe heathen are devils.\"(217) Supported by this and other texts, it soon\nbecame a dogma. So strong was the hold it took, under the influence\nof the Church, that not until late in the seventeenth century did its\nsubstantial truth begin to be questioned.\n\n\n     (217) For so the Vulgate and all the early versions rendered Ps. xcvi,\n5.\n\n\nWith no field of action had the sway of the ancient deities been more\nidentified than with that of atmospheric phenomena. The Roman heard\nJupiter, and the Teuton heard Thor, in the thunder. Could it be doubted\nthat these powerful beings would now take occasion, unless hindered by\nthe command of the Almighty, to vent their spite against those who had\ndeserted their altars? Might not the Almighty himself be willing to\nemploy the malice of these powers of the air against those who had\noffended him?\n\nIt was, indeed, no great step, for those whose simple faith accepted\nrain or sunshine as an answer to their prayers, to suspect that the\nuntimely storms or droughts, which baffled their most earnest petitions,\nwere the work of the archenemy, \"the prince of the power of the air.\"\n\nThe great fathers of the Church had easily found warrant for this\ndoctrine in Scripture. St. Jerome declared the air to be full of devils,\nbasing this belief upon various statements in the prophecies of Isaiah\nand in the Epistle to the Ephesians. St. Augustine held the same view as\nbeyond controversy.(218)\n\n\n     (218) For St. Jerome, see his Com. in Ep. ad Ephesios (lib. iii, cap.6):\ncommenting on the text, \"Our battle is not with flesh and blood,\" he\nexplains this as meaning the devils in the air, and adds, \"Nam et in\nalio loco de daemonibus quod in aere isto vagentur, Apostolus ait:\nIn quibus ambulastis aliquando juxta Saeculum mundi istius, secundum\nprincipem potestatis aeris spiritus, qui nunc operatur in filos\ndiffidentiae (Eph, ii,2). Haec autem omnium doctorum opinio est, quod\naer iste qui coelum et terram medius dividens, inane appellatur, plenus\nsit contrariis fortitudinibus.\" See also his Com. in Isaiam, lib. xiii,\ncap. 50 (Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. xxiv, p. 477). For Augustine, see the\nDe Civitate Dei, passim.\n\n\nDuring the Middle Ages this doctrine of the diabolical origin of storms\nwent on gathering strength. Bede had full faith in it, and narrates\nvarious anecdotes in support of it. St. Thomas Aquinas gave it his\nsanction, saying in his all authoritative Summa, \"Rains and winds, and\nwhatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons.\"\n\"It is,\" he says, \"a dogma of faith that the demons can produce wind,\nstorms, and rain of fire from heaven.\"\n\nAlbert the Great taught the same doctrine, and showed how a\ncertain salve thrown into a spring produced whirlwinds. The great\nFranciscan--the \"seraphic doctor\"--St. Bonaventura, whose services to\ntheology earned him one of the highest places in the Church, and to whom\nDante gave special honour in paradise, set upon this belief his high\nauthority. The lives of the saints, and the chronicles of the Middle\nAges, were filled with it. Poetry and painting accepted the idea and\ndeveloped it. Dante wedded it to verse, and at Venice this thought\nmay still be seen embodied in one of the grand pictures of Bordone: a\nshipload of demons is seen approaching Venice in a storm, threatening\ndestruction to the city, but St. Mark, St. George, and St. Nicholas\nattack the vessel, and disperse the hellish crew.(219)\n\n\n     (219) For Bede, see the Hist. Eccles., vol. i, p. 17; Vita Cuthberti,\nc. 17 (Migne, tome xliv). For Thomas Aquinas, see the Summa, pars I, qu.\nlxxx, art. 2. The second citation I owe to Rydberg, Magic of the Middle\nAges, p. 73, where the whole interesting passage is given at length. For\nAlbertus Magnus, see the De Potentia Daemonum (cited by Maury, Legendes\nPieuses). For Bonaventura, see the Comp. Theol. Veritat., ii, 26. For\nDante, see Purgatorio, c. 5. On Bordone's picture, see Maury, Legendes\nPieuses, p. 18, note.\n\n\nThe popes again and again sanctioned this doctrine, and it was\namalgamated with various local superstitions, pious imaginations, and\ninteresting arguments, to strike the fancy of the people at large. A\nstrong argument in favour of a diabolical origin of the thunderbolt\nwas afforded by the eccentricities of its operation. These attracted\nespecial attention in the Middle Ages, and the popular love of marvel\ngeneralized isolated phenomena into rules. Thus it was said that the\nlightning strikes the sword in the sheath, gold in the purse, the\nfoot in the shoe, leaving sheath and purse and shoe unharmed; that it\nconsumes a human being internally without injuring the skin; that it\ndestroys nets in the water, but not on the land; that it kills one\nman, and leaves untouched another standing beside him; that it can tear\nthrough a house and enter the earth without moving a stone from its\nplace; that it injures the heart of a tree, but not the bark; that wine\nis poisoned by it, while poisons struck by it lose their venom; that a\nman's hair may be consumed by it and the man be unhurt.(220)\n\n\n     (220) See, for lists of such admiranda, any of the early writers--e. g.,\nVincent of Beauvais, Reisch's Margarita, or Eck's Aristotle.\n\n\nThese peculiar phenomena, made much of by the allegorizing sermonizers\nof the day, were used in moral lessons from every pulpit. Thus the\nCarmelite, Matthias Farinator, of Vienna, who at the Pope's own instance\ncompiled early in the fifteenth century that curious handbook of\nillustrative examples for preachers, the Lumen Animae, finds a spiritual\nanalogue for each of these anomalies.(221)\n\n\n     (221) See the Lumen animae, Eichstadt, 1479.\n\n\nThis doctrine grew, robust and noxious, until, in the fifteenth,\nsixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, we find its bloom in a multitude\nof treatises by the most learned of the Catholic and Protestant divines,\nand its fruitage in the torture chambers and on the scaffolds throughout\nChristendom. At the Reformation period, and for nearly two hundred years\nafterward, Catholics and Protestants vied with each other in promoting\nthis growth. John Eck, the great opponent of Luther, gave to the\nworld an annotated edition of Aristotle's Physics, which was long\nauthoritative in the German universities; and, though the text is free\nfrom this doctrine, the woodcut illustrating the earth's atmosphere\nshows most vividly, among the clouds of mid-air, the devils who there\nreign supreme.(222)\n\n\n     (222) See Eck, Aristotelis Meteorologica, Augsburg, 1519.\n\n\nLuther, in the other religious camp, supported the superstition even\nmore zealously, asserting at times his belief that the winds themselves\nare only good or evil spirits, and declaring that a stone thrown into a\ncertain pond in his native region would cause a dreadful storm because\nof the devils, kept prisoners there.(223)\n\n\n     (223) For Luther, see the Table Talk; also Michelet, Life of Luther\n(translated by Hazlitt, p. 321).\n\n\nJust at the close of the same century, Catholics and Protestants\nwelcomed alike the great work of Delrio. In this, the power of devils\nover the elements is proved first from the Holy Scriptures, since, he\ndeclares, \"they show that Satan brought fire down from heaven to consume\nthe servants and flocks of Job, and that he stirred up a violent\nwind, which overwhelmed in ruin the sons and daughters of Job at their\nfeasting.\" Next, Delrio insists on the agreement of all the orthodox\nfathers, that it was the devil himself who did this, and attention is\ncalled to the fact that the hail with which the Egyptians were punished\nis expressly declared in Holy Scripture to have been brought by the\nevil angels. Citing from the Apocalypse, he points to the four angels\nstanding at the four corners of the earth, holding back the winds and\npreventing their doing great damage to mortals; and he dwells especially\nupon the fact that the devil is called by the apostle a \"prince of the\npower of the air.\" He then goes on to cite the great fathers of the\nChurch--Clement, Jerome, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.(224)\n\n\n     (224) For Delrio, see his Disquisitiones Magicae, first printed at Liege\nin 1599-1600, but reprinted again and again throughout the seventeenth\ncentury. His interpretation of Psalm lxxviii, 47-49, was apparently\nshared by the translators of our own authorized edition. For citations\nby him, see Revelation vii, 1,; Ephesians ii, 2. Even according to\nmodern commentators (e.g., Alford), the word here translated \"power\"\ndenotes not MIGHT, but GOVERNMENT, COURT, HIERARCHY; and in this sense\nit was always used by the ecclesiastical writers, whose conception\nis best rendered by our plural--\"powers.\" See Delrio, Disquisitiones\nMagicae, lib. ii, c. 11.\n\n\nThis doctrine was spread not only in ponderous treatises, but in light\nliterature and by popular illustrations. In the Compendium Maleficarum\nof the Italian monk Guacci, perhaps the most amusing book in the whole\nliterature of witchcraft, we may see the witch, in propria persona,\nriding the diabolic goat through the clouds while the storm rages around\nand beneath her; and we may read a rich collection of anecdotes, largely\ncontemporary, which establish the required doctrine beyond question.\n\nThe first and most natural means taken against this work of Satan in the\nair was prayer; and various petitions are to be found scattered through\nthe Christian liturgies--some very beautiful and touching. This means of\nescape has been relied upon, with greater or less faith, from those days\nto these. Various medieval saints and reformers, and devoted men in\nall centuries, from St. Giles to John Wesley, have used it with results\nclaimed to be miraculous. Whatever theory any thinking man may hold\nin the matter, he will certainly not venture a reproachful word: such\nprayers have been in all ages a natural outcome of the mind of man in\ntrouble.(225)\n\n\n     (225) For Guacci, see his Compendium Maleficarum (Milan, 1608). For the\ncases of St. Giles, John Wesley, and others stilling the tempests, see\nBrewer, Dictionary of Miracles, s. v. Prayer.\n\n\nBut against the \"power of the air\" were used other means of a very\ndifferent character and tendency, and foremost among these was exorcism.\nIn an exorcism widely used and ascribed to Pope Gregory XIII, the\nformula is given: \"I, a priest of Christ,... do command ye, most foul\nspirits, who do stir up these clouds,... that ye depart from them, and\ndisperse yourselves into wild and untilled places, that ye may be no\nlonger able to harm men or animals or fruits or herbs, or whatsoever\nis designed for human use.\" But this is mild, indeed, compared to some\nlater exorcisms, as when the ritual runs: \"All the people shall rise,\nand the priest, turning toward the clouds, shall pronounce these\nwords: 'I exorcise ye, accursed demons, who have dared to use, for the\naccomplishment of your iniquity, those powers of Nature by which God in\ndivers ways worketh good to mortals; who stir up winds, gather vapours,\nform clouds, and condense them into hail.... I exorcise ye,... that\nye relinquish the work ye have begun, dissolve the hail, scatter the\nclouds, disperse the vapours, and restrain the winds.'\" The rubric goes\non to order that then there shall be a great fire kindled in an open\nplace, and that over it the sign of the cross shall be made, and the one\nhundred and fourteenth Psalm chanted, while malodorous substances, among\nthem sulphur and asafoetida, shall be cast into the flames. The purpose\nseems to have been literally to \"smoke out\" Satan.(226)\n\n\n     (226) See Polidorus Valerius, Practica exorcistarum; also the Thesaurus\nexorcismorum (Cologne, 1626), pp. 158-162.\n\n\nManuals of exorcisms became important--some bulky quartos, others\nhandbooks. Noteworthy among the latter is one by the Italian priest\nLocatelli, entitled Exorcisms most Powerful and Efficacious for the\nDispelling of Aerial Tempests, whether raised by Demons at their own\nInstance or at the Beck of some Servant of the Devil.(227)\n\n\n     (227) That is, Exorcismi, etc. A \"corrected\" second edition was printed\nat Laybach, 1680, in 24mo, to which is appended another manual of Preces\net conjurationes contra aereas tempestates, omnibus sacerdotibus utiles\net necessaria, printed at the monastery of Kempten (in Bavaria) in 1667.\nThe latter bears as epigraph the passage from the gospels describing\nChrist's stilling of the winds.\n\n\nThe Jesuit Gretser, in his famous book on Benedictions and Maledictions,\ndevotes a chapter to this subject, dismissing summarily the scepticism\nthat questions the power of devils over the elements, and adducing the\nstory of Job as conclusive.(228)\n\n\n     (228) See Gretser, De benedictionibus et maledictionibus, lib. ii, c.\n48.\n\n\nNor was this theory of exorcism by any means confined to the elder\nChurch. Luther vehemently upheld it, and prescribed especially the first\nchapter of St. John's gospel as of unfailing efficacy against thunder\nand lightning, declaring that he had often found the mere sign of the\ncross, with the text, \"The word was made flesh,\" sufficient to put\nstorms to flight.(229)\n\n\n     (229) So, at least, says Gretser (in his De ben. et aml., as above).\n\n\nFrom the beginning of the Middle Ages until long after the Reformation\nthe chronicles give ample illustration of the successful use of such\nexorcisms. So strong was the belief in them that it forced itself into\nminds comparatively rational, and found utterance in treatises of much\nimportance.\n\nBut, since exorcisms were found at times ineffectual, other means were\nsought, and especially fetiches of various sorts. One of the earliest of\nthese appeared when Pope Alexander I, according to tradition, ordained\nthat holy water should be kept in churches and bedchambers to drive\naway devils.(230) Another safeguard was found in relics, and of similar\nefficacy were the so-called \"conception billets\" sold by the Carmelite\nmonks. They contained a formula upon consecrated paper, at which the\ndevil might well turn pale. Buried in the corner of a field, one of\nthese was thought to give protection against bad weather and destructive\ninsects.(231)\n\n\n     (230) \"Instituit ut aqua quam sanctum appellamus sale admixta\ninterpositus sacris orationibus et in templis et in cubiculis ad\nfugandos daemones retineretur.\" Platina, Vitae Pontif. But the story is\nfrom the False Decretals.\n\n\n     (231) See Rydberg, The Magic of the Middle Ages, translated by Edgren,\npp. 63-66.\n\n\nBut highest in repute during centuries was the Agnus Dei--a piece of wax\nblessed by the Pope's own hand, and stamped with the well-known device\nrepresenting the \"Lamb of God.\" Its powers were so marvellous that Pope\nUrban V thought three of these cakes a fitting gift from himself to the\nGreek Emperor. In the Latin doggerel recounting their virtues, their\nmeteorological efficacy stands first, for especial stress is laid on\ntheir power of dispelling the thunder. The stress thus laid by Pope\nUrban, as the infallible guide of Christendom, on the efficacy of this\nfetich, gave it great value throughout Europe, and the doggerel verses\nreciting its virtues sank deep into the popular mind. It was\nconsidered a most potent means of dispelling hail, pestilence, storms,\nconflagrations, and enchantments; and this feeling was deepened by the\nrules and rites for its consecration. So solemn was the matter, that the\nmanufacture and sale of this particular fetich was, by a papal bull of\n1471, reserved for the Pope himself, and he only performed the required\nceremony in the first and seventh years of his pontificate. Standing\nunmitred, he prayed: \"O God,... we humbly beseech thee that thou wilt\nbless these waxen forms, figured with the image of an innocent lamb,...\nthat, at the touch and sight of them, the faithful may break forth into\npraises, and that the crash of hailstorms, the blast of hurricanes, the\nviolence of tempests, the fury of winds, and the malice of thunderbolts\nmay be tempered, and evil spirits flee and tremble before the standard\nof thy holy cross, which is graven upon them.\"(232)\n\n\n     (232) These pious charms are still in use in the Church, and may be\nfound described in any ecclesiastical cyclopaedia. The doggerel verses\nrun as follows:\n\n\"Tonitrua magna terret, Inimicos nostras domat Et peccata nostra delet;\nPraegnantem cum partu salvat, Ab incendio praeservat, Dona dignis multa\nconfert, A subersione servat, Utque malis mala defert. A morte cita\nliberat, Portio, quamvis parva sit, Et Cacodaemones fugat, Ut magna\ntamen proficit.\"\n\nSee these verses cited in full faith, so late as 1743, in Father Vincent\nof Berg's Enchiridium, pp. 23, 24, where is an ample statement of the\nvirtues of the Agnus Dei, and istructions for its use. A full account\nof the rites used in consecrating this fetich, with the prayers and\nbenedictions which gave colour to this theory of the powers of the Agnus\nDei, may be found in the ritual of the Church. I have used the edition\nentitled Sacrarum ceremoniarum sive rituum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae\nlibri tres, Rome, 1560, in folio. The form of the papal prayer is as\nfollows: \"Deus... te supplicater deprecamur, ut... has cereas formas,\ninnocentissimi agni imagine figuritas, benedicere... digneris, ut per\nejus tactum et visum fideles invitentur as laudes, fragor grandinum,\nprocella turbinum, impetus tempestatum, ventorum rabies, infesta\ntonitrua temperentur, fugiant atque tremiscant maligni spiritus ante\nSanctae Crucis vexillum, quod in illis exculptum est....\"(Sacr. Cer.\nRom. Eccl., as above). If any are curious as to the extent to which this\nconsecrated wax was a specific for all spiritual and most temporal ills\nduring the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, let them consult the\nJesuit Litterae annuae, passim.\n\n\nAnother favourite means with the clergy of the older Church for bringing\nto naught the \"power of the air,\" was found in great processions bearing\nstatues, relics, and holy emblems through the streets. Yet even these\nwere not always immediately effective. One at Liege, in the thirteenth\ncentury, thrice proved unsuccessful in bringing rain, when at last\nit was found that the image of the Virgin had been forgotten! A new\nprocession was at once formed, the Salve Regina sung, and the rain came\ndown in such torrents as to drive the devotees to shelter.(233)\n\n\n     (233) John of Winterthur describes many such processions in Switzerland\nin the thirteenth century, and all the monkish chronicles speak of them.\nSee also Rydberg, Magic of the Middle Ages, p. 74.\n\n\nIn Catholic lands this custom remains to this day, and very important\nfeatures in these processions are the statues and the reliquaries of\npatron saints. Some of these excel in bringing sunshine, others in\nbringing rain. The Cathedral of Chartres is so fortunate as to possess\nsundry relics of St. Taurin, especially potent against dry weather,\nand some of St. Piat, very nearly as infallible against wet weather. In\ncertain regions a single saint gives protection alternately against wet\nand dry weather--as, for example, St. Godeberte at Noyon. Against storms\nSt. Barbara is very generally considered the most powerful protectress;\nbut, in the French diocese of Limoges, Notre Dame de Crocq has proved a\nmost powerful rival, for when, a few years since, all the neighbouring\nparishes were ravaged by storms, not a hailstone fell in the canton\nwhich she protected. In the diocese of Tarbes, St. Exupere is especially\ninvoked against hail, peasants flocking from all the surrounding country\nto his shrine.(234)\n\n\n     (234) As to protection by special saints as stated, see the Guide du\ntouriste et du pelerin a Chartes, 1867 (cited by \"Paul Parfait,\" in his\nDossier des Pelerinages); also pp. 139-145 of the Dossier.\n\n\nBut the means of baffling the powers of the air which came to be most\nwidely used was the ringing of consecrated church bells.\n\nThis usage had begun in the time of Charlemagne, and there is extant a\nprohibition of his against the custom of baptizing bells and of hanging\ncertain tags(235) on their tongues as a protection against hailstorms;\nbut even Charlemagne was powerless against this current of medieval\nsuperstition. Theological reasons were soon poured into it, and in the\nyear 968 Pope John XIII gave it the highest ecclesiastical sanction by\nhimself baptizing the great bell of his cathedral church, the Lateran,\nand christening it with his own name.(236)\n\n\n     (235) Perticae. See Montanus, Hist. Nachricht van den Glocken (Chenmitz,\n1726), p. 121; and Meyer, Der Aberglaube des Mittelalters, p. 186.\n\n\n     (236) For statements regarding Pope John and bell superstitions, see\nHiggins's Anacalypsis, vol. ii, p. 70. See also Platina, Vitae Pontif.,\ns. v. John XIII, and Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, sub anno 968.\nThe conjecture of Baronius that the bell was named after St. John the\nBaptist, is even more startling than the accepted tradition of the\nPope's sponsorship.\n\n\nThis idea was rapidly developed, and we soon find it supported in\nponderous treatises, spread widely in sermons, and popularized in\nmultitudes of inscriptions cast upon the bells themselves. This branch\nof theological literature may still be studied in multitudes of church\ntowers throughout Europe. A bell at Basel bears the inscription, \"Ad\nfugandos demones.\" Another, in Lugano, declares \"The sound of this bell\nvanquishes tempests, repels demons, and summons men.\" Another, at\nthe Cathedral of Erfurt, declares that it can \"ward off lightning and\nmalignant demons.\" A peal in the Jesuit church at the university town\nof Pont-a-Mousson bore the words, \"They praise God, put to flight the\nclouds, affright the demons, and call the people.\" This is dated 1634.\nAnother bell in that part of France declares, \"It is I who dissipate the\nthunders\"(Ego sum qui dissipo tonitrua).(237)\n\n\n     (237) For these illustrations, with others equally striking, see Meyer,\nDer Aberglaube des Mittelalters, pp. 185, 186. For the later examples,\nsee Germain, Anciennes cloches lorraines (Nancy, 1885), pp. 23, 27.\n\n\nAnother, in one of the forest cantons of Switzerland, bears a doggerel\ncouplet, which may be thus translated:\n\n\"On the devil my spite I'll vent, And, God helping, bad weather\nprevent.\"(238)\n\n\n     (238) \"An dem Tufel will cih mich rachen, Mit der hilf gotz alle bosen\nwetter erbrechen.\" (See Meyer, as above.)\n\n\nVery common were inscriptions embodying this doctrine in sonorous Latin.\n\nNaturally, then, there grew up a ritual for the consecration of bells.\nKnollys, in his quaint translation of the old chronicler Sleidan,\ngives us the usage in the simple English of the middle of the sixteenth\ncentury:\n\n\"In lyke sorte (as churches) are the belles used. And first, forsouth,\nthey must hange so, as the Byshop may goe round about them. Whiche\nafter he hath sayde certen Psalmes, he consecrateth water and salte, and\nmingleth them together, wherwith he washeth the belle diligently both\nwithin and without, after wypeth it drie, and with holy oyle draweth in\nit the signe of the crosse, and prayeth God, that whan they shall rynge\nor sounde that bell, all the disceiptes of the devyll may vanyshe away,\nhayle, thondryng, lightening, wyndes, and tempestes, and all untemperate\nweathers may be aswaged. Whan he hath wipte out the crosse of oyle wyth\na linen cloth, he maketh seven other crosses in the same, and within\none only. After saying certen Psalmes, he taketh a payre of sensours and\nsenseth the bel within, and prayeth God to sende it good lucke. In many\nplaces they make a great dyner, and kepe a feast as it were at a solemne\nwedding.\"(239)\n\n\n     (239) Sleiden's Commentaries, English translation, as above, fol. 334\n(lib. xxi, sub anno 1549).\n\n\nThese bell baptisms became matters of great importance. Popes, kings,\nand prelates were proud to stand as sponsors. Four of the bells at\nthe Cathedral of Versailles having been destroyed during the French\nRevolution, four new ones were baptized, on the 6th of January, 1824,\nthe Voltairean King, Louis XVIII, and the pious Duchess d'Angouleme\nstanding as sponsors.\n\nIn some of these ceremonies zeal appears to have outrun knowledge, and\none of Luther's stories, at the expense of the older Church, was that\ncertain authorities thus christened a bell \"Hosanna,\" supposing that to\nbe the name of a woman.\n\nTo add to the efficacy of such baptisms, water was sometimes brought\nfrom the river Jordan.(240)\n\n\n     (240) See Montanus, as above, who cites Beck, Lutherthum vor Luthero,\np. 294, for the statement that many bells were carried to the Jordan by\npilgrims for this purpose.\n\n\nThe prayers used at bell baptisms fully recognise this doctrine. The\nritual of Paris embraces the petition that, \"whensoever this bell\nshall sound, it shall drive away the malign influences of the assailing\nspirits, the horror of their apparitions, the rush of whirlwinds, the\nstroke of lightning, the harm of thunder, the disasters of storms, and\nall the spirits of the tempest.\" Another prayer begs that \"the sound of\nthis bell may put to flight the fiery darts of the enemy of men\"; and\nothers vary the form but not the substance of this petition. The great\nJesuit theologian, Bellarmin, did indeed try to deny the reality of this\nbaptism; but this can only be regarded as a piece of casuistry suited\nto Protestant hardness of heart, or as strategy in the warfare against\nheretics.(241)\n\n\n     (241) For prayers at bell baptisms, see Arago, Oeuvres, Paris, 1854,\nvol. iv, p. 322.\n\n\nForms of baptism were laid down in various manuals sanctioned directly\nby papal authority, and sacramental efficacy was everywhere taken for\ngranted.(242) The development of this idea in the older Church was too\nstrong to be resisted;(243) but, as a rule, the Protestant theologians\nof the Reformation, while admitting that storms were caused by Satan\nand his legions, opposed the baptism of bells, and denied the theory of\ntheir influence in dispersing storms. Luther, while never doubting that\ntroublesome meteorological phenomena were caused by devils, regarded\nwith contempt the idea that the demons were so childish as to be scared\nby the clang of bells; his theory made them altogether too powerful to\nbe affected by means so trivial. The great English Reformers, while also\naccepting very generally the theory of diabolic interference in storms,\nreproved strongly the baptizing of bells, as the perversion of a\nsacrament and involving blasphemy. Bishop Hooper declared reliance upon\nbells to drive away tempests, futile. Bishop Pilkington, while arguing\nthat tempests are direct instruments of God's wrath, is very severe\nagainst using \"unlawful means,\" and among these he names \"the hallowed\nbell\"; and these opinions were very generally shared by the leading\nEnglish clergy.(244)\n\n\n     (242) As has often been pointed out, the ceremony was in all its\ndetails--even to the sponsors, the wrapping a garment about the\nbaptised, the baptismal fee, the feast--precisely the same as when a\nchild was baptised. Magius, who is no sceptic, relates from his own\nexperience an instant of this sort, where a certain bishop stood sponsor\nfor two bells, giving them both his own name--William. (See his De\nTintinnabulis, vol. xiv.)\n\n\n     (243) And no wonder, when the oracle of the Church, Thomas Aquinas,\nexpressly pronounced church bells, \"provided they have been duly\nconsecrated and baptised,\" the foremost means of \"frustrating the\natmospheric mischiefs of the devil,\" and likened steeples in which\nbells are ringing to a hen brooding her chickens, \"for the tones of the\nconsecrated metal repel the demons and avert storm and lightning\"; when\npre-Reformation preachers of such universal currency as Johannes Herolt\ndeclared, \"Bells, as all agree, are baptised with the result that they\nare secure from the power of Satan, terrify the demons, compel the\npowers\"; when Geiler of Kaiserberg especially commended bell-ringing\nas a means of beating off the devil in storms; and when a canonist\nlike Durandus explained the purpose of the rite to be, that \"the demons\nhearing the trumpets of the Eternal King, to wit, the bells, may flee\nin terror, and may cease from the stirring up of tempests.\" See Herolt,\nSermones Discipuli, vol. xvii, and Durandus, De ritibus ecclesiae, vol.\nii, p. 12. I owe the first of these citations to Rydberg, and the others\nto Montanus. For Geiler, see Dacheux, Geiler de Kaiserberg, pp. 280,\n281.\n\n\n     (244) The baptism of bells was indeed, one of the express complaints\nof the German Protestant princes at the Reformation. See their Gravam.\nCent. German. Grav., p. 51. For Hooper, see his Early Writings, p. 197\n(in Parker Society Publications). For Pilkington, see his Works, p.\n177 (in same). Among others sharing these opinions were Tyndale, Bishop\nRidley, Archbishop Sandys, Becon, Calfhill, and Rogers. It is to be\nnoted that all of these speak of the rite as \"baptism.\"\n\n\nToward the end of the sixteenth century the Elector of Saxony strictly\nforbade the ringing of bells against storms, urging penance and prayer\ninstead; but the custom was not so easily driven out of the Protestant\nChurch, and in some quarters was developed a Protestant theory of a\nrationalistic sort, ascribing the good effects of bell-ringing in storms\nto the calling together of the devout for prayer or to the suggestion\nof prayers during storms at night. As late as the end of the seventeenth\ncentury we find the bells of Protestant churches in northern Germany\nrung for the dispelling of tempests. In Catholic Austria this\nbell-ringing seems to have become a nuisance in the last century, for\nthe Emperor Joseph II found it necessary to issue an edict against\nit; but this doctrine had gained too large headway to be arrested by\nargument or edict, and the bells may be heard ringing during storms to\nthis day in various remote districts in Europe.(245) For this was no\nmere superficial view. It was really part of a deep theological current\nsteadily developed through the Middle Ages, the fundamental idea of the\nwhole being the direct influence of the bells upon the \"Power of the\nAir\"; and it is perhaps worth our while to go back a little and glance\nover the coming of this current into the modern world. Having grown\nsteadily through the Middle Ages, it appeared in full strength at\nthe Reformation period; and in the sixteenth century Olaus Magnus,\nArchbishop of Upsala and Primate of Sweden, in his great work on the\nnorthern nations, declares it a well-established fact that cities and\nharvests may be saved from lightning by the ringing of bells and the\nburning of consecrated incense, accompanied by prayers; and he cautions\nhis readers that the workings of the thunderbolt are rather to be\nmarvelled at than inquired into. Even as late as 1673 the Franciscan\nprofessor Lealus, in Italy, in a schoolbook which was received with\ngreat applause in his region, taught unhesitatingly the agency of\ndemons in storms, and the power of bells over them, as well as the\nportentousness of comets and the movement of the heavens by angels.\nHe dwells especially, too, upon the perfect protection afforded by the\nwaxen Agnus Dei. How strong this current was, and how difficult even for\nphilosophical minds to oppose, is shown by the fact that both Descartes\nand Francis Bacon speak of it with respect, admitting the fact, and\nsuggesting very mildly that the bells may accomplish this purpose by the\nconcussion of the air.(246)\n\n\n     (245) For Elector of Saxony, see Peuchen, Disp. circa tempestates,\nJena, 1697. For the Protestant theory of bells, see, e. g., the Ciciones\nSelectae of Superintendent Conrad Dieterich (cited by Peuchen, Disp.\ncirca tempestates). For Protestant ringing of bells to dispel tempests,\nsee Schwimmer, Physicalische Luftfragen, 1692 (cited by Peuchen, as\nabove). He pictures the whole population of a Thuringinian district\nflocking to the churches on the approach of a storm.\n\n\n     (246) For Olaus Magnus, see the De gentibus septentrionalibus (Rome,\n1555), lib. i, c. 12, 13. For Descartes, see his De meteor., cent.\n2, 127. In his Historia Ventorum he again alludes to the belief, and\nwithout comment.\n\n\nBut no such moderate doctrine sufficed, and the renowned Bishop\nBinsfeld, of Treves, in his noted treatise on the credibility of the\nconfessions of witches, gave an entire chapter to the effect of bells in\ncalming atmospheric disturbances. Basing his general doctrine upon the\nfirst chapter of Job and the second chapter of Ephesians, he insisted\non the reality of diabolic agency in storms; and then, by theological\nreasoning, corroborated by the statements extorted in the torture\nchamber, he showed the efficacy of bells in putting the hellish legions\nto flight.(247) This continued, therefore, an accepted tenet,\ndeveloped in every nation, and coming to its climax near the end of the\nseventeenth century. At that period--the period of Isaac Newton--Father\nAugustine de Angelis, rector of the Clementine College at Rome,\npublished under the highest Church authority his lectures upon\nmeteorology. Coming from the centre of Catholic Christendom, at so late\na period, they are very important as indicating what had been developed\nunder the influence of theology during nearly seventeen hundred years.\nThis learned head of a great college at the heart of Christendom taught\nthat \"the surest remedy against thunder is that which our Holy Mother\nthe Church practises, namely, the ringing of bells when a thunderbolt\nimpends: thence follows a twofold effect, physical and moral--a\nphysical, because the sound variously disturbs and agitates the air, and\nby agitation disperses the hot exhalations and dispels the thunder; but\nthe moral effect is the more certain, because by the sound the faithful\nare stirred to pour forth their prayers, by which they win from God the\nturning away of the thunderbolt.\" Here we see in this branch of thought,\nas in so many others, at the close of the seventeenth century, the dawn\nof rationalism. Father De Angelis now keeps demoniacal influence in\nthe background. Little, indeed, is said of the efficiency of bells in\nputting to flight the legions of Satan: the wise professor is evidently\npreparing for that inevitable compromise which we see in the history of\nevery science when it is clear that it can no longer be suppressed by\necclesiastical fulminations.(248)\n\n\n     (247) See Binsfeld, De Confessionbus Malef., pp. 308-314, edition of\n1623.\n\n\n     (248) For De Angelis, see his Lectiones Meteorol., p. 75.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE AGENCY OF WITCHES.\n\n\nBut, while this comparatively harmless doctrine of thwarting the powers\nof the air by fetiches and bell-ringing was developed, there were\nevolved another theory, and a series of practices sanctioned by the\nChurch, which must forever be considered as among the most fearful\ncalamities in human history. Indeed, few errors have ever cost so much\nshedding of innocent blood over such wide territory and during so many\ngenerations. Out of the old doctrine--pagan and Christian--of evil\nagency in atmospheric phenomena was evolved the belief that certain men,\nwomen, and children may secure infernal aid to produce whirlwinds, hail,\nfrosts, floods, and the like.\n\nAs early as the ninth century one great churchman, Agobard, Archbishop\nof Lyons, struck a heavy blow at this superstition. His work, Against\nthe Absurd Opinion of the Vulgar touching Hail and Thunder, shows him\nto have been one of the most devoted apostles of right reason whom human\nhistory has known. By argument and ridicule, and at times by a\nlofty eloquence, he attempted to breast this tide. One passage is of\nhistorical significance. He declares: \"The wretched world lies now under\nthe tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of\nsuch absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to\nbelieve.\"(249)\n\n\n     (249) For a very interesting statement of Agobard's position and\nwork, with citations from his Liber contra insulsam vulgi opinionem\nde grandine et tonitruis, see Poole, Illustrations of the History of\nMediaeval Thought, pp. 40 et seq. The works of Agobard are in vol. civ\nof Migne's Patrol. Lat.\n\n\nAll in vain; the tide of superstition continued to roll on; great\ntheologians developed it and ecclesiastics favoured it; until as we near\nthe end of the medieval period the infallible voice of Rome is heard\naccepting it, and clinching this belief into the mind of Christianity.\nFor, in 1437, Pope Eugene IV, by virtue of the teaching power conferred\non him by the Almighty, and under the divine guarantee against any\npossible error in the exercise of it, issued a bull exhorting the\ninquisitors of heresy and witchcraft to use greater diligence against\nthe human agents of the Prince of Darkness, and especially against those\nwho have the power to produce bad weather. In 1445 Pope Eugene returned\nagain to the charge, and again issued instructions and commands\ninfallibly committing the Church to the doctrine. But a greater than\nEugene followed, and stamped the idea yet more deeply into the mind of\nthe Church. On the 7th of December, 1484, Pope Innocent VIII sent forth\nhis bull Summis Desiderantes. Of all documents ever issued from Rome,\nimperial or papal, this has doubtless, first and last, cost the greatest\nshedding of innocent blood. Yet no document was ever more clearly\ndictated by conscience. Inspired by the scriptural command, \"Thou\nshalt not suffer a witch to live,\" Pope Innocent exhorted the clergy of\nGermany to leave no means untried to detect sorcerers, and especially\nthose who by evil weather destroy vineyards, gardens, meadows,\nand growing crops. These precepts were based upon various texts of\nScripture, especially upon the famous statement in the book of Job; and,\nto carry them out, witch-finding inquisitors were authorized by the Pope\nto scour Europe, especially Germany, and a manual was prepared for their\nuse--the Witch-Hammer, Malleus Maleficarum. In this manual, which was\nrevered for centuries, both in Catholic and Protestant countries, as\nalmost divinely inspired, the doctrine of Satanic agency in atmospheric\nphenomena was further developed, and various means of detecting and\npunishing it were dwelt upon.(250)\n\n\n     (250) For the bull of Pope Eugene, see Raynaldus, Annales Eccl., pp.\n1437, 1445. The Latin text of the bull Summis Desiderantes may now be\nfound in the Malleus Maleficarum, in Binsfeld's De Confessionibus cited\nbelow, or in Roskoff's Geschichte des Teufles (Leipsic, 1869), vol.\ni, pp. 222-225. There is, so far as I know, no good analysis, in any\nEnglish book, of the contents of the Witch-Hammer; but such may be\nfound in Roskoff's Geschichte des Teufels, or in Soldan's Geschichte der\nHexenprozesse. Its first dated edition is that of 1489; but Prof. Burr\nhas shown that it was printed as early as 1486. It was, happily, never\ntranslated into any modern tongue.\n\n\nWith the application of torture to thousands of women, in accordance\nwith the precepts laid down in the Malleus, it was not difficult to\nextract masses of proof for this sacred theory of meteorology. The poor\ncreatures, writhing on the rack, held in horror by those who had been\nnearest and dearest to them, anxious only for death to relieve their\nsufferings, confessed to anything and everything that would satisfy the\ninquisitors and judges. All that was needed was that the inquisitors\nshould ask leading questions(251) and suggest satisfactory answers: the\nprisoners, to shorten the torture, were sure sooner or later to give the\nanswer required, even though they knew that this would send them to the\nstake or scaffold. Under the doctrine of \"excepted cases,\" there was no\nlimit to torture for persons accused of heresy or witchcraft; even the\nsafeguards which the old pagan world had imposed upon torture were thus\nthrown down, and the prisoner MUST confess.\n\n\n     (251) For still extant lists of such questions, see the Zeitschrift\nfur deutsche Culturgeschichte for 1858, pp. 522-528, or Diefenbach,\nDer Hexenwahn in Deutschland, pp. 15-17. Father Vincent of Berg (in his\nEnchiridium) gives a similar list for use by priests in the confession\nof the accused. Manuscript lists of this sort which have actually done\nservice in the courts of Baden and Bavaria may be seen in the library of\nCornell University.\n\n\nThe theological literature of the Middle Ages was thus enriched with\nnumberless statements regarding modes of Satanic influence on the\nweather. Pathetic, indeed, are the records; and none more so than the\nconfessions of these poor creatures, chiefly women and children,\nduring hundreds of years, as to their manner of raising hailstorms and\ntempests. Such confessions, by tens of thousands, are still to be found\nin the judicial records of Germany, and indeed of all Europe. Typical\namong these is one on which great stress was laid during ages, and for\nwhich the world was first indebted to one of these poor women. Crazed by\nthe agony of torture, she declared that, returning with a demon through\nthe air from the witches' sabbath, she was dropped upon the earth in the\nconfusion which resulted among the hellish legions when they heard\nthe bells sounding the Ave Maria. It is sad to note that, after a\ncontribution so valuable to sacred science, the poor woman was condemned\nto the flames. This revelation speedily ripened the belief that,\nwhatever might be going on at the witches' sabbath--no matter how\ntriumphant Satan might be--at the moment of sounding the consecrated\nbells the Satanic power was paralyzed. This theory once started, proofs\ncame in to support it, during a hundred years, from the torture chambers\nin all parts of Europe.\n\nThroughout the later Middle Ages the Dominicans had been the main agents\nin extorting and promulgating these revelations, but in the centuries\nfollowing the Reformation the Jesuits devoted themselves with even\nmore keenness and vigour to the same task. Some curious questions\nincidentally arose. It was mooted among the orthodox authorities whether\nthe damage done by storms should or should not be assessed upon the\nproperty of convicted witches. The theologians inclined decidedly to the\naffirmative; the jurists, on the whole, to the negative.(252)\n\n\n     (252) For proofs of the vigour of the Jesuits in this persecution, see\nnot only the histories of witchcraft, but also the Annuae litterae of\nthe Jesuits themselves, passim.\n\n\nIn spite of these tortures, lightning and tempests continued, and great\nmen arose in the Church throughout Europe in every generation to point\nout new cruelties for the discovery of \"weather-makers,\" and new methods\nfor bringing their machinations to naught.\n\nBut here and there, as early as the sixteenth century, we begin to see\nthinkers endeavouring to modify or oppose these methods. At that time\nParacelsus called attention to the reverberation of cannon as explaining\nthe rolling of thunder, but he was confronted by one of his greatest\ncontemporaries. Jean Bodin, as superstitious in natural as he was\nrational in political science, made sport of the scientific theory,\nand declared thunder to be \"a flaming exhalation set in motion by evil\nspirits, and hurled downward with a great crash and a horrible smell\nof sulphur.\" In support of this view, he dwelt upon the confessions\nof tortured witches, upon the acknowledged agency of demons in the\nWill-o'-the-wisp, and specially upon the passage in the one hundred and\nfourth Psalm, \"Who maketh his angels spirits, his ministers a flaming\nfire.\"\n\nTo resist such powerful arguments by such powerful men was dangerous\nindeed. In 1513, Pomponatius, professor at Padua, published a volume\nof Doubts as to the Fourth Book of Aristotle's Meteorologica, and also\ndared to question this power of devils; but he soon found it advisable\nto explain that, while as a PHILOSOPHER he might doubt, yet as\na CHRISTIAN he of course believed everything taught by Mother\nChurch--devils and all--and so escaped the fate of several others\nwho dared to question the agency of witches in atmospheric and other\ndisturbances.\n\nA few years later Agrippa of Nettesheim made a somewhat similar effort\nto breast this theological tide in northern Europe. He had won a great\nreputation in various fields, but especially in natural science,\nas science was then understood. Seeing the folly and cruelty of the\nprevailing theory, he attempted to modify it, and in 1518, as Syndic of\nMetz, endeavoured to save a poor woman on trial for witchcraft. But the\nchief inquisitor, backed by the sacred Scriptures, the papal bulls, the\ntheological faculties, and the monks, was too strong for him; he was not\nonly forced to give up his office, but for this and other offences of a\nsimilar sort was imprisoned, driven from city to city and from country\nto country, and after his death his clerical enemies, especially the\nDominicans, pursued his memory with calumny, and placed over his grave\nprobably the most malignant epitaph ever written.\n\nAs to argument, these efforts were met especially by Jean Bodin in his\nfamous book, the Demonomanie des Sorciers, published in 1580. It was a\nwork of great power by a man justly considered the leading thinker in\nFrance, and perhaps in Europe. All the learning of the time, divine\nand human, he marshalled in support of the prevailing theory. With\ninexorable logic he showed that both the veracity of sacred Scripture\nand the infallibility of a long line of popes and councils of the Church\nwere pledged to it, and in an eloquent passage this great publicist\nwarned rulers and judges against any mercy to witches--citing the\nexample of King Ahab condemned by the prophet to die for having pardoned\na man worthy of death, and pointing significantly to King Charles IX of\nFrance, who, having pardoned a sorcerer, died soon afterward.(253)\n\n\n     (253) To the argument cited above, Bodin adds: \"Id certissimam daemonis\npraesentiam significat; nam ubicunque daemones cum hominibus nefaria\nsocietatis fide copulantur, foedissimum semper relinquunt sulphuris\nodorem, quod sortilegi saepissime experiuntur et confitentur.\" See\nBodin's Universae Naturae Theatrum, Frankfort, 1597, pp. 208-211. The\nfirst edition of the book by Pomponatius, which was the earliest of his\nwritings, is excessively rare, but it was reprinted at Venice just a\nhalf-century later. It is in his De incantationibus, however, that he\nspeaks especially of devils. As to Pomponatius, see, besides these,\nCreighton's History of the Papacy during the Reformation, and an\nexcellent essay in Franck's Moralistes et Philosophes. For Agrippa,\nsee his biography by Prof. Henry Morley, London, 1856. For Bodin, see\na statement of his general line of argument in Lecky, Rationalism in\nEurope, vol. i, chap. 1.\n\n\nIn the last years of the sixteenth century the persecutions for\nwitchcraft and magic were therefore especially cruel; and in the western\ndistricts of Germany the main instrument in them was Binsfeld, Suffragan\nBishop of Treves.\n\nAt that time Cornelius Loos was a professor at the university of\nthat city. He was a devoted churchman, and one of the most brilliant\nopponents of Protestantism, but he finally saw through the prevailing\nbelief regarding occult powers, and in an evil hour for himself embodied\nhis idea in a book entitled True and False Magic. The book, though\nearnest, was temperate, but this helped him and his cause not at all.\nThe texts of Scripture clearly sanctioning belief in sorcery and magic\nstood against him, and these had been confirmed by the infallible\nteachings of the Church and the popes from time immemorial; the book was\nstopped in the press, the manuscript confiscated, and Loos thrown into a\ndungeon.\n\nThe inquisitors having wrought their will upon him, in the spring of\n1593 he was brought out of prison, forced to recant on his knees\nbefore the assembled dignitaries of the Church, and thenceforward kept\nconstantly under surveillance and at times in prison. Even this was\nconsidered too light a punishment, and his arch-enemy, the Jesuit\nDelrio, declared that, but for his death by the plague, he would have\nbeen finally sent to the stake.(254)\n\n\n     (254) What remains of the manuscript of Loos, which until recently was\nsupposed to be lost, was found, hidden away on the shelves of the old\nJesuit library at Treves, by Mr. George Lincoln Burr, now a professor\nat Cornell University; and Prof. Burr's copy of the manuscript is now in\nthe library of that institution. For a full account of the discovery\nand its significance, see the New York Nation for November 11, 1886. The\nfacts regarding the after-life of Loos were discovered by Prof. Burr in\nmanuscript records at Brussels.\n\n\nThat this threat was not unmeaning had been seen a few years earlier in\na case even more noted, and in the same city. During the last decades of\nthe sixteenth century, Dietrich Flade, an eminent jurist, was rector of\nthe University of Treves, and chief judge of the Electoral Court, and\nin the latter capacity he had to pass judgment upon persons tried on\nthe capital charge of magic and witchcraft. For a time he yielded to the\nlong line of authorities, ecclesiastical and judicial, supporting the\nreality of this crime; but he at last seems to have realized that it\nwas unreal, and that the confessions in his torture chamber, of\ncompacts with Satan, riding on broomsticks to the witch-sabbath, raising\ntempests, producing diseases, and the like, were either the results of\nmadness or of willingness to confess anything and everything, and even\nto die, in order to shorten the fearful tortures to which the accused\nwere in all cases subjected until a satisfactory confession was\nobtained.\n\nOn this conviction of the unreality of many at least of the charges\nFlade seems to have acted, and he at once received his reward. He was\narrested by the authority of the archbishop and charged with having sold\nhimself to Satan--the fact of his hesitation in the persecution being\nperhaps what suggested his guilt. He was now, in his turn, brought into\nthe torture chamber over which he had once presided, was racked until\nhe confessed everything which his torturers suggested, and finally, in\n1589, was strangled and burnt.\n\nOf that trial a record exists in the library of Cornell University\nin the shape of the original minutes of the case, and among them the\ndepositions of Flade when under torture, taken down from his own lips\nin the torture chamber. In these depositions this revered and venerable\nscholar and jurist acknowledged the truth of every absurd charge brought\nagainst him--anything, everything, which would end the fearful torture:\ncompared with that, death was nothing.(255)\n\n\n     (255) For the case of Flade, see the careful study by Prof. Burr,\nThe Fate of Dietrich Flade, in the Papers of the American Historical\nAssociation, 1891.\n\n\nNor was even a priest secure who ventured to reveal the unreality of\nmagic. When Friedrich Spee, the Jesuit poet of western Germany, found,\nin taking the confessions of those about to be executed for magic, that\nwithout exception, just when about to enter eternity and utterly beyond\nhope of pardon, they all retracted their confessions made under torture,\nhis sympathies as a man rose above his loyalty to his order, and he\npublished his Cautio Criminalis as a warning, stating with entire\nmoderation the facts he had observed and the necessity of care. But he\ndid not dare publish it under his own name, nor did he even dare publish\nit in a Catholic town; he gave it to the world anonymously, and,\nin order to prevent any tracing of the work to him through the\nconfessional, he secretly caused it to be published in the Protestant\ntown of Rinteln.\n\nNor was this all. Nothing shows so thoroughly the hold that this belief\nin magic had obtained as the conduct of Spee's powerful friend and\ncontemporary, John Philip von Schonborn, later the Elector and Prince\nArchbishop of Mayence.\n\nAs a youth, Schonborn had loved and admired Spee, and had especially\nnoted his persistent melancholy and his hair whitened even in his\nyoung manhood. On Schonborn's pressing him for the cause, Spee at last\nconfessed that his sadness, whitened hair, and premature old age were\ndue to his recollections of the scores of men and women and children\nwhom he had been obliged to see tortured and sent to the scaffold\nand stake for magic and witchcraft, when he as their father confessor\npositively knew them to be innocent. The result was that, when\nSchonborn became Elector and Archbishop of Mayence, he stopped the witch\npersecutions in that province, and prevented them as long as he lived.\nBut here was shown the strength of theological and ecclesiastical\ntraditions and precedents. Even a man so strong by family connections,\nand enjoying such great temporal and spiritual power as Schonborn, dared\nnot openly give his reasons for this change of policy. So far as is\nknown, he never uttered a word publicly against the reality of magic,\nand under his successor in the electorate witch trials were resumed.\n\nThe great upholders of the orthodox view retained full possession of the\nfield. The victorious Bishop Binsfeld, of Treves, wrote a book to prove\nthat everything confessed by the witches under torture, especially the\nraising of storms and the general controlling of the weather, was worthy\nof belief; and this book became throughout Europe a standard authority,\nboth among Catholics and Protestants. Even more inflexible was Remigius,\ncriminal judge in Lorraine. On the title-page of his manual he boasts\nthat within fifteen years he had sent nine hundred persons to death for\nthis imaginary crime.(256)\n\n\n     (256) For Spee and Schonborn, see Soldan and other German authorities.\nThere are copies of the first editions of the Cautio Criminalis in\nthe library of Cornell University. Binsfeld's book bore the title of\nTractatus de confessionibus maleficorum et sagarum. First published\nat Treves in 1589, it appeared subsequently four times in the original\nLatin, as well as in two distinct German translations, and in a French\none. Remigius's manual was entitled Daemonolatreia, and was first\nprinted at Lyons in 1595.\n\n\nProtestantism fell into the superstition as fully as Catholicism. In the\nsame century John Wier, a disciple of Agrippa, tried to frame a pious\ntheory which, while satisfying orthodoxy, should do something to check\nthe frightful cruelties around him. In his book De Praestigiis Daemonum,\npublished in 1563, he proclaimed his belief in witchcraft, but suggested\nthat the compacts with Satan, journeys through the air on broomsticks,\nbearing children to Satan, raising storms and producing diseases--to\nwhich so many women and children confessed under torture--were delusions\nsuggested and propagated by Satan himself, and that the persons charged\nwith witchcraft were therefore to be considered \"as possessed\"--that is,\nrather as sinned against than sinning.(257)\n\n\n     (257) For Wier, or Weyer, see, besides his own works, the excellent\nbiography by Prof. Binz, of Bonn.\n\n\nBut neither Catholics nor Protestants would listen for a moment to any\nsuch suggestion. Wier was bitterly denounced and persecuted. Nor did\nBekker, a Protestant divine in Holland, fare any better in the following\ncentury. For his World Bewitched, in which he ventured not only to\nquestion the devil's power over the weather, but to deny his bodily\nexistence altogether, he was solemnly tried by the synod of his Church\nand expelled from his pulpit, while his views were condemned as heresy,\nand overwhelmed with a flood of refutations whose mere catalogue would\nfill pages; and these cases were typical of many.\n\nThe Reformation had, indeed, at first deepened the superstition; the new\nChurch being anxious to show itself equally orthodox and zealous with\nthe old. During the century following the first great movement, the\neminent Lutheran jurist and theologian Benedict Carpzov, whose boast was\nthat he had read the Bible fifty-three times, especially distinguished\nhimself by his skill in demonstrating the reality of witchcraft, and by\nhis cruelty in detecting and punishing it. The torture chambers were\nset at work more vigorously than ever, and a long line of theological\njurists followed to maintain the system and to extend it.\n\nTo argue against it, or even doubt it, was exceedingly dangerous. Even\nas late as the beginning of the eighteenth century, when Christian\nThomasius, the greatest and bravest German between Luther and Lessing,\nbegan the efforts which put an end to it in Protestant Germany, he did\nnot dare at first, bold as he was, to attack it in his own name,\nbut presented his views as the university thesis of an irresponsible\nstudent.(258)\n\n\n     (258) For Thomasius, see his various bigraphies by Luden and others;\nalso the treatises on witchcraft by Soldan and others. Manuscript notes\nof his lectures, and copies of his earliest books on witchcraft as well\nas on other forms of folly, are to be found in the library of Cornell\nUniversity.\n\n\nThe same stubborn resistance to the gradual encroachment of the\nscientific spirit upon the orthodox doctrine of witchcraft was seen in\nGreat Britain. Typical as to the attitude both of Scotch and English\nProtestants were the theory and practice of King James I, himself the\nauthor of a book on Demonology, and nothing if not a theologian. As to\ntheory, his treatise on Demonology supported the worst features of the\nsuperstition; as to practice, he ordered the learned and acute work of\nReginald Scot, The Discoverie of Witchcraft, one of the best treatises\never written on the subject, to be burned by the hangman, and he applied\nhis own knowledge to investigating the causes of the tempests which\nbeset his bride on her voyage from Denmark. Skilful use of unlimited\ntorture soon brought these causes to light. A Dr. Fian, while his legs\nwere crushed in the \"boots\" and wedges were driven under his finger\nnails, confessed that several hundred witches had gone to sea in a sieve\nfrom the port of Leith, and had raised storms and tempests to drive back\nthe princess.\n\nWith the coming in of the Puritans the persecution was even more\nlargely, systematically, and cruelly developed. The great witch-finder,\nMatthew Hopkins, having gone through the county of Suffolk and tested\nmultitudes of poor old women by piercing them with pins and needles,\ndeclared that county to be infested with witches. Thereupon Parliament\nissued a commission, and sent two eminent Presbyterian divines to\naccompany it, with the result that in that county alone sixty persons\nwere hanged for witchcraft in a single year. In Scotland matters were\neven worse. The auto da fe of Spain was celebrated in Scotland under\nanother name, and with Presbyterian ministers instead of Roman Catholic\npriests as the main attendants. At Leith, in 1664, nine women were\nburned together. Condemnations and punishments of women in batches were\nnot uncommon. Torture was used far more freely than in England, both in\ndetecting witches and in punishing them. The natural argument developed\nin hundreds of pulpits was this: If the Allwise God punishes his\ncreatures with tortures infinite in cruelty and duration, why should not\nhis ministers, as far as they can, imitate him?\n\nThe strongest minds in both branches of the Protestant Church in Great\nBritain devoted themselves to maintaining the superstition. The newer\nscientific modes of thought, and especially the new ideas regarding the\nheavens, revealed first by Copernicus and Galileo and later by Newton,\nHuygens, and Halley, were gradually dissipating the whole domain of the\nPrince of the Power of the Air; but from first to last a long line of\neminent divines, Anglican and Calvinistic, strove to resist the new\nthought. On the Anglican side, in the seventeenth century, Meric\nCasaubon, Doctor of Divinity and a high dignitary of Canterbury,--Henry\nMore, in many respects the most eminent scholar in the\nChurch,--Cudworth, by far the most eminent philosopher, and Dr. Joseph\nGlanvil, the most cogent of all writers in favour of witchcraft,\nsupported the orthodox superstition in treatises of great power; and Sir\nMatthew Hale, the greatest jurist of the period, condemning two women\nto be burned for witchcraft, declared that he based his judgment on the\ndirect testimony of Holy Scripture. On the Calvinistic side were the\ngreat names of Richard Baxter, who applauded some of the worst cruelties\nin England, and of Increase and Cotton Mather, who stimulated the worst\nin America; and these marshalled in behalf of this cruel superstition\na long line of eminent divines, the most earnest of all, perhaps, being\nJohn Wesley.\n\nNor was the Lutheran Church in Sweden and the other Scandinavian\ncountries behind its sister churches, either in persecuting witchcraft\nor in repressing doubts regarding the doctrine which supported it.\n\nBut in spite of all these great authorities in every land, in spite of\nsuch summary punishments as those of Flade, Loos, and Bekker, and in\nspite of the virtual exclusion from church preferment of all who doubted\nthe old doctrine, the new scientific view of the heavens was developed\nmore and more; the physical sciences were more and more cultivated; the\nnew scientific atmosphere in general more and more prevailed; and at the\nend of the seventeenth century this vast growth of superstition began to\nwither and droop. Montaigne, Bayle, and Voltaire in France, Thomasius in\nGermany, Calef in New England, and Beccaria in Italy, did much also to\ncreate an intellectual and moral atmosphere fatal to it.\n\nAnd here it should be stated, to the honour of the Church of England,\nthat several of her divines showed great courage in opposing the\ndominant doctrine. Such men as Harsnet, Archbishop of York, and Morton,\nBishop of Lichfield, who threw all their influence against witch-finding\ncruelties even early in the seventeenth century, deserve lasting\ngratitude. But especially should honour be paid to the younger men in\nthe Church, who wrote at length against the whole system: such men as\nWagstaffe and Webster and Hutchinson, who in the humbler ranks of the\nclergy stood manfully for truth, with the certainty that by so doing\nthey were making their own promotion impossible.\n\nBy the beginning of the eighteenth century the doctrine was evidently\ndying out. Where torture had been abolished, or even made milder,\n\"weather-makers\" no longer confessed, and the fundamental proofs in\nwhich the system was rooted were evidently slipping away. Even the great\ntheologian Fromundus, at the University of Louvain, the oracle of his\nage, who had demonstrated the futility of the Copernican theory, had\nforeseen this and made the inevitable attempt at compromise, declaring\nthat devils, though OFTEN, are not ALWAYS or even for the most part\nthe causes of thunder. The learned Jesuit Caspar Schott, whose Physica\nCuriosa was one of the most popular books of the seventeenth century,\nalso ventured to make the same mild statement. But even such concessions\nby such great champions of orthodoxy did not prevent frantic efforts in\nvarious quarters to bring the world back under the old dogma: as late as\n1743 there was published in Catholic Germany a manual by Father Vincent\nof Berg, in which the superstition was taught to its fullest extent,\nwith the declaration that it was issued for the use of priests under\nthe express sanction of the theological professors of the University\nof Cologne; and twenty-five years later, in 1768, we find in Protestant\nEngland John Wesley standing firmly for witchcraft, and uttering his\nfamous declaration, \"The giving up of witchcraft is in effect the giving\nup of the Bible.\" The latest notable demonstration in Scotland was made\nas late as 1773, when \"the divines of the Associated Presbytery\" passed\na resolution declaring their belief in witchcraft, and deploring the\ngeneral scepticism regarding it.(259)\n\n\n     (259) For Carpzov and his successors, see authorities already given.\nThe best account of James's share in the extortion of confessions may\nbe found in the collection of Curious Tracts published at Edinburgh in\n1820. See also King James's own Demonologie, and Pitcairn's Criminal\nTrials of Scotland, vol. i, part ii, pp. 213-223. For Casaubon, see his\nCredulity and Incredulity in Things Natural, pp. 66, 67. For Glanvil,\nMore, Casaubon, Baxter, Wesley, and others named, see Lecky, as above.\nAs to Increase Mather, in his sermons, already cited, on The Voice\nof God in Stormy Winds, Boston, 1704, he says: \"when there are great\ntempests, the Angels oftentimes have a Hand therein.. .. Yea, and\nsometimes, by Divine Permission, Evil Angels have a Hand in such Storms\nand Tempests as are very hurtful to Men on the Earth.\" Yet \"for the most\npart, such Storms are sent by the Providence of God as a Sign of His\nDispleasure for the Sins of Men,\" and sometimes \"as Prognosticks and\nterrible Warnings of Great Judgements not far off.\" From the height\nof his erudition Mather thus rebukes the timid voice of scientific\nscepticism: \"There are some who would be esteemed the Wits of the World,\nthat ridicule those as Superstitious and Weak Persons, which look upon\nDreadful Tempests as Prodromous of other Judgements. Nevertheless,\nthe most Learned and Judicious Writers, not only of the Gentiles, but\namongst Christians, have Embraced such a Persuasion; their Sentiments\ntherein being Confirmed by the Experience of many Ages.\" For another\ncurious turn given to this theory, with reference to sanitary science,\nsee Deodat Lawson's famous sermon at Salem, in 1692, on Christ's\nFidelity a Shield against Satan's Malignity, p. 21 of the second\nedition. For Cotton Mather, see his biography by Barrett Wendell, pp.\n91, 92; also the chapter on Diabolism and Hysteria in this work. For\nFromundus, see his Meteorologica (London, 1656), lib. iii, c. 9, and\nlib. ii, c. 3. For Schott, see his Physica Curiosa (edition of Wurzburg,\n1667), p. 1249. For Father Vincent of Berg, see his Enchiridium\nquadripartitum (Cologne, 1743). Besides benedictions and exorcisms for\nall emergencies, it contains full directions for the manufacture of\nAgnes Dei, and of another sacred panacea called \"Heiligthum,\" not less\neffective against evil powers,--gives formulae to be worn for protection\nagainst the devil,--suggests a list of signs by which diabolical\npossession may be recognised, and prescribes the question to be asked by\npriests in the examination of witches. For Wesley, see his Journal for\n1768. The whole citation is given in Lecky.\n\n\n\n\nIV. FRANKLIN'S LIGHTNING-ROD.\n\n\nBut in the midst of these efforts by Catholics like Father Vincent\nand by Protestants like John Wesley to save the old sacred theory, it\nreceived its death-blow. In 1752 Franklin made his experiments with the\nkite on the banks of the Schuylkill; and, at the moment when he drew\nthe electric spark from the cloud, the whole tremendous fabric of\ntheological meteorology reared by the fathers, the popes, the\nmedieval doctors, and the long line of great theologians, Catholic and\nProtestant, collapsed; the \"Prince of the Power of the Air\" tumbled from\nhis seat; the great doctrine which had so long afflicted the earth was\nprostrated forever.\n\nThe experiment of Franklin was repeated in various parts of Europe, but,\nat first, the Church seemed careful to take no notice of it. The old\nchurch formulas against the Prince of the Power of the Air were still\nused, but the theological theory, especially in the Protestant Church,\nbegan to grow milder. Four years after Franklin's discovery Pastor\nKarl Koken, member of the Consistory and official preacher to the City\nCouncil of Hildesheim, was moved by a great hailstorm to preach and\npublish a sermon on The Revelation of God in Weather. Of \"the Prince of\nthe Power of the Air\" he says nothing; the theory of diabolical agency\nhe throws overboard altogether; his whole attempt is to save the older\nand more harmless theory, that the storm is the voice of God. He insists\nthat, since Christ told Nicodemus that men \"know not whence the wind\ncometh,\" it can not be of mere natural origin, but is sent directly\nby God himself, as David intimates in the Psalm, \"out of His secret\nplaces.\" As to the hailstorm, he lays great stress upon the plague of\nhail sent by the Almighty upon Egypt, and clinches all by insisting\nthat God showed at Mount Sinai his purpose to startle the body before\nimpressing the conscience.\n\nWhile the theory of diabolical agency in storms was thus drooping and\ndying, very shrewd efforts were made at compromise. The first of these\nattempts we have already noted, in the effort to explain the efficacy of\nbells in storms by their simple use in stirring the faithful to prayer,\nand in the concession made by sundry theologians, and even by the great\nLord Bacon himself, that church bells might, under the sanction of\nProvidence, disperse storms by agitating the air. This gained ground\nsomewhat, though it was resisted by one eminent Church authority, who\nanswered shrewdly that, in that case, cannon would be even more pious\ninstruments. Still another argument used in trying to save this part of\nthe theological theory was that the bells were consecrated instruments\nfor this purpose, \"like the horns at whose blowing the walls of Jericho\nfell.\"(260)\n\n\n     (260) For Koken, see his Offenbarung Gottes in Wetter, Hildesheim,\nc1756; and for the answer to Bacon, see Gretser's De Benedictionibus,\nlib. ii, cap. 46.\n\n\nBut these compromises were of little avail. In 1766 Father Sterzinger\nattacked the very groundwork of the whole diabolic theory. He was, of\ncourse, bitterly assailed, insulted, and hated; but the Church thought\nit best not to condemn him. More and more the \"Prince of the Power\nof the Air\" retreated before the lightning-rod of Franklin. The older\nChurch, while clinging to the old theory, was finally obliged to confess\nthe supremacy of Franklin's theory practically; for his lightning-rod\ndid what exorcisms, and holy water, and processions, and the Agnus\nDei, and the ringing of church bells, and the rack, and the burning of\nwitches, had failed to do. This was clearly seen, even by the poorest\npeasants in eastern France, when they observed that the grand spire of\nStrasburg Cathedral, which neither the sacredness of the place, nor the\nbells within it, nor the holy water and relics beneath it, could protect\nfrom frequent injuries by lightning, was once and for all protected by\nFranklin's rod. Then came into the minds of multitudes the answer to the\nquestion which had so long exercised the leading theologians of Europe\nand America, namely, \"Why should the Almighty strike his own consecrated\ntemples, or suffer Satan to strike them?\"\n\nYet even this practical solution of the question was not received\nwithout opposition.\n\nIn America the earthquake of 1755 was widely ascribed, especially in\nMassachusetts, to Franklin's rod. The Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of the\nOld South Church, published a sermon on the subject, and in the appendix\nexpressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to\nthe erection of \"iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin.\" He\ngoes on to argue that \"in Boston are more erected than anywhere else in\nNew England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is\nno getting out of the mighty hand of God.\"\n\nThree years later, John Adams, speaking of a conversation with\nArbuthnot, a Boston physician, says: \"He began to prate upon the\npresumption of philosophy in erecting iron rods to draw the lightning\nfrom the clouds. He railed and foamed against the points and the\npresumption that erected them. He talked of presuming upon God, as\nPeter attempted to walk upon the water, and of attempting to control the\nartillery of heaven.\"\n\nAs late as 1770 religious scruples regarding lightning-rods were still\nfelt, the theory being that, as thunder and lightning were tokens of\nthe Divine displeasure, it was impiety to prevent their doing their full\nwork. Fortunately, Prof. John Winthrop, of Harvard, showed himself wise\nin this, as in so many other things: in a lecture on earthquakes he\nopposed the dominant theology; and as to arguments against Franklin's\nrods, he declared, \"It is as much our duty to secure ourselves against\nthe effects of lightning as against those of rain, snow, and wind by the\nmeans God has put into our hands.\"\n\nStill, for some years theological sentiment had to be regarded\ncarefully. In Philadelphia, a popular lecturer on science for some time\nafter Franklin's discovery thought it best in advertising his lectures\nto explain that \"the erection of lightning-rods is not chargeable\nwith presumption nor inconsistent with any of the principles either of\nnatural or revealed religion.\"(261)\n\n\n     (261) Regarding opposition to Franklin's rods in America, see Prince's\nsermon, especially p. 23; also Quincy, History of Harvard University,\nvol. ii, p. 219; also Works of John Adams, vol. ii, pp. 51, 52; also\nParton's Life of Franklin, vol. i, p. 294.\n\n\nIn England, the first lightning conductor upon a church was not put\nup until 1762, ten years after Franklin's discovery. The spire of St.\nBride's Church in London was greatly injured by lightning in 1750, and\nin 1764 a storm so wrecked its masonry that it had to be mainly\nrebuilt; yet for years after this the authorities refused to attach a\nlightning-rod. The Protestant Cathedral of St. Paul's, in London, was\nnot protected until sixteen years after Franklin's discovery, and the\ntower of the great Protestant church at Hamburg not until a year\nlater still. As late as 1783 it was declared in Germany, on excellent\nauthority, that within a space of thirty-three years nearly four hundred\ntowers had been damaged and one hundred and twenty bell-ringers killed.\n\nIn Roman Catholic countries a similar prejudice was shown, and its\ncost at times was heavy. In Austria, the church of Rosenberg, in the\nmountains of Carinthia, was struck so frequently and with such loss of\nlife that the peasants feared at last to attend service. Three times\nwas the spire rebuilt, and it was not until 1778--twenty-six years\nafter Franklin's discovery--that the authorities permitted a rod to be\nattached. Then all trouble ceased.\n\nA typical case in Italy was that of the tower of St. Mark's, at Venice.\nIn spite of the angel at its summit and the bells consecrated to ward\noff the powers of the air, and the relics in the cathedral hard by, and\nthe processions in the adjacent square, the tower was frequently injured\nand even ruined by lightning. In 1388 it was badly shattered; in 1417,\nand again in 1489, the wooden spire surmounting it was utterly consumed;\nit was again greatly injured in 1548, 1565, 1653, and in 1745 was struck\nso powerfully that the whole tower, which had been rebuilt of stone and\nbrick, was shattered in thirty-seven places. Although the invention of\nFranklin had been introduced into Italy by the physicist Beccaria, the\ntower of St. Mark's still went unprotected, and was again badly struck\nin 1761 and 1762; and not until 1766--fourteen years after Franklin's\ndiscovery--was a lightning-rod placed upon it; and it has never been\nstruck since.(262)\n\n\n     (262) For reluctance in England to protect churches with Franklin's\nrods, see Priestley, History of Electricity, London, 1775, vol. i, pp.\n407, 465 et seq.\n\n\nSo, too, though the beautiful tower of the Cathedral of Siena, protected\nby all possible theological means, had been struck again and again, much\nopposition was shown to placing upon it what was generally known as\n\"the heretical rod,\" but the tower was at last protected by Franklin's\ninvention, and in 1777, though a very heavy bolt passed down the rod,\nthe church received not the slightest injury. This served to reconcile\ntheology and science, so far as that city was concerned; but the case\nwhich did most to convert the Italian theologians to the scientific view\nwas that of the church of San Nazaro, at Brescia. The Republic of Venice\nhad stored in the vaults of this church over two hundred thousand pounds\nof powder. In 1767, seventeen years after Franklin's discovery, no rod\nhaving been placed upon it, it was struck by lightning, the powder in\nthe vaults was exploded, one sixth of the entire city destroyed, and\nover three thousand lives were lost.(263)\n\n\n     (263) See article on Lightning in the Edinburgh Review for October,\n1844.\n\n\nSuch examples as these, in all parts of Europe, had their effect. The\nformulas for conjuring off storms, for consecrating bells to ward off\nlightning and tempests, and for putting to flight the powers of the air,\nwere still allowed to stand in the liturgies; but the lightning-rod,\nthe barometer, and the thermometer, carried the day. A vigorous line of\ninvestigators succeeding Franklin completed his victory, The traveller\nin remote districts of Europe still hears the church bells ringing\nduring tempests; the Polish or Italian peasant is still persuaded to\npay fees for sounding bells to keep off hailstorms; but the universal\ntendency favours more and more the use of the lightning-rod, and of the\ninsurance offices where men can be relieved of the ruinous results of\nmeteorological disturbances in accordance with the scientific laws\nof average, based upon the ascertained recurrence of storms. So, too,\nthough many a poor seaman trusts to his charm that has been bathed in\nholy water, or that has touched some relic, the tendency among mariners\nis to value more and more those warnings which are sent far and wide\neach day over the earth and under the sea by the electric wires in\naccordance with laws ascertained by observation.\n\nYet, even in our own time, attempts to revive the old theological\ndoctrine of meteorology have not been wanting. Two of these, one in a\nRoman Catholic and another in a Protestant country, will serve as types\nof many, to show how completely scientific truth has saturated and\npermeated minds supposed to be entirely surrendered to the theological\nview.\n\nThe Island of St. Honorat, just off the southern coast of France,\nis deservedly one of the places most venerated in Christendom. The\nmonastery of Lerins, founded there in the fourth century, became a\nmother of similar institutions in western Europe, and a centre of\nreligious teaching for the Christian world. In its atmosphere, legends\nand myths grew in beauty and luxuriance. Here, as the chroniclers tell\nus, at the touch of St. Honorat, burst forth a stream of living water,\nwhich a recent historian of the monastery declares a greater miracle\nthan that of Moses; here he destroyed, with a touch of his staff, the\nreptiles which infested the island, and then forced the sea to wash away\ntheir foul remains. Here, to please his sister, Sainte-Marguerite, a\ncherry tree burst into full bloom every month; here he threw his cloak\nupon the waters and it became a raft, which bore him safely to visit the\nneighbouring island; here St. Patrick received from St. Just the staff\nwith which he imitated St. Honorat by driving all reptiles from Ireland.\nPillaged by Saracens and pirates, the island was made all the more\nprecious by the blood of Christian martyrs. Popes and kings made\npilgrimages to it; saints, confessors, and bishops went forth from it\ninto all Europe; in one of its cells St. Vincent of Lerins wrote that\nfamous definition of pure religion which, for nearly fifteen hundred\nyears, has virtually superseded that of St. James. Naturally the\nmonastery became most illustrious, and its seat \"the Mediterranean Isle\nof Saints.\"\n\nBut toward the close of the last century, its inmates having become\nslothful and corrupt, it was dismantled, all save a small portion torn\ndown, and the island became the property first of impiety, embodied in a\nFrench actress, and finally of heresy, embodied in an English clergyman.\n\nBought back for the Church by the Bishop of Frejus in 1859, there\nwas little revival of life for twelve years. Then came the reaction,\nreligious and political, after the humiliation of France and the Vatican\nby Germany; and of this reaction the monastery of St. Honorat was made\none of the most striking outward and visible signs. Pius IX interested\nhimself directly in it, called into it a body of Cistercian monks,\nand it became the chief seat of their order in France. To restore its\nsacredness the strict system of La Trappe was established--labour,\nsilence, meditation on death. The word thus given from Rome was seconded\nin France by cardinals, archbishops, and all churchmen especially\nanxious for promotion in this world or salvation in the next. Worn-out\ndukes and duchesses of the Faubourg Saint-Germain united in this\nenterprise of pious reaction with the frivolous youngsters, the petits\ncreves, who haunt the purlieus of Notre Dame de Lorette. The great\nchurch of the monastery was handsomely rebuilt and a multitude of\naltars erected; and beautiful frescoes and stained windows came from\nthe leaders of the reaction. The whole effect was, perhaps, somewhat\ntheatrical and thin, but it showed none the less earnestness in making\nthe old \"Isle of Saints\" a protest against the hated modern world.\n\nAs if to bid defiance still further to modern liberalism, great store of\nrelics was sent in; among these, pieces of the true cross, of the\nwhite and purple robes, of the crown of thorns, sponge, lance, and\nwinding-sheet of Christ,--the hair, robe, veil, and girdle of the\nBlessed Virgin; relics of St. John the Baptist, St. Joseph, St. Mary\nMagdalene, St. Paul, St. Barnabas, the four evangelists, and a multitude\nof other saints: so many that the bare mention of these treasures\nrequires twenty-four distinct heads in the official catalogue recently\npublished at the monastery. Besides all this--what was considered even\nmore powerful in warding off harm from the revived monastery--the bones\nof Christian martyrs were brought from the Roman catacombs and laid\nbeneath the altars.(264)\n\n\n     (264) See the Guide des Visiteurs a Lerins, published at the Monastery\nin 1880, p. 204; also the Histoire de Lerins, mentioned below.\n\n\nAll was thus conformed to the medieval view; nothing was to be left\nwhich could remind one of the nineteenth century; the \"ages of faith\"\nwere to be restored in their simplicity. Pope Leo XIII commended to the\nbrethren the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas as their one great object of\nstudy, and works published at the monastery dwelt upon the miracles of\nSt. Honorat as the most precious refutation of modern science.\n\nHigh in the cupola, above the altars and relics, were placed the bells.\nSent by pious donors, they were solemnly baptized and consecrated\nin 1871, four bishops officiating, a multitude of the faithful being\npresent from all parts of Europe, and the sponsors of the great tenor\nbell being the Bourbon claimant to the ducal throne of Parma and his\nduchess. The good bishop who baptized the bells consecrated them with\na formula announcing their efficacy in driving away the \"Prince of the\nPower of the Air\" and the lightning and tempests he provokes.\n\nAnd then, above all, at the summit of the central spire, high above\nrelics, altars, and bells, was placed--A LIGHTNING-ROD!(265)\n\n\n     (265) See Guide, as above, p. 84. Les Isles de Lerins, by the Abbe\nAlliez (Paris, 1860), and the Histoire de Lerins, by the same author,\nare the authorities for the general history of the abbey, and are\nespecially strong in presenting the miracles of St. Honorat, etc. The\nCartulaire of the monastery, recently published, is also valuable. But\nthese do not cover the recent revival, for an account of which recourse\nmust be had to the very interesting and naive Guide already cited.\n\n\nThe account of the monastery, published under the direction of the\npresent worthy abbot, more than hints at the saving, by its bells, of\na ship which was wrecked a few years since on that coast; and yet, to\nprotect the bells and church and monks and relics from the very foe\nwhom, in the medieval faith, all these were thought most powerful\nto drive away, recourse was had to the scientific discovery of that\n\"arch-infidel,\" Benjamin Franklin!\n\nPerhaps the most striking recent example in Protestant lands of this\nchange from the old to the new occurred not long since in one of the\ngreat Pacific dependencies of the British crown. At a time of severe\ndrought an appeal was made to the bishop, Dr. Moorhouse, to order public\nprayers for rain. The bishop refused, advising the petitioners for the\nfuture to take better care of their water supply, virtually telling\nthem, \"Heaven helps those who help themselves.\" But most noteworthy in\nthis matter was it that the English Government, not long after, scanning\nthe horizon to find some man to take up the good work laid down by the\nlamented Bishop Fraser, of Manchester, chose Dr. Moorhouse; and his\nutterance upon meteorology, which a few generations since would have\nbeen regarded by the whole Church as blasphemy, was universally alluded\nto as an example of strong good sense, proving him especially fit for\none of the most important bishoprics in England.\n\nThroughout Christendom, the prevalence of the conviction that\nmeteorology is obedient to laws is more and more evident. In cities\nespecially, where men are accustomed each day to see posted in public\nplaces charts which show the storms moving over various parts of the\ncountry, and to read in the morning papers scientific prophecies as to\nthe weather, the old view can hardly be very influential.\n\nSignificant of this was the feeling of the American people during the\nfearful droughts a few years since in the States west of the Missouri.\nNo days were appointed for fasting and prayer to bring rain; there was\nno attribution of the calamity to the wrath of God or the malice of\nSatan; but much was said regarding the folly of our people in allowing\nthe upper regions of their vast rivers to be denuded of forests, thus\nsubjecting the States below to alternations of drought and deluge.\nPartly as a result of this, a beginning has been made of teaching forest\nculture in many schools, tree-planting societies have been formed, and\n\"Arbor Day\" is recognised in several of the States. A true and noble\ntheology can hardly fail to recognise, in the love of Nature and care\nfor our fellow-men thus promoted, something far better, both from a\nreligious and a moral point of view, than any efforts to win the Divine\nfavour by flattery, or to avert Satanic malice by fetichism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII. FROM MAGIC TO CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS.\n\n\nI.\n\nIn all the earliest developments of human thought we find a strong\ntendency to ascribe mysterious powers over Nature to men and women\nespecially gifted or skilled. Survivals of this view are found to\nthis day among savages and barbarians left behind in the evolution\nof civilization, and especially is this the case among the tribes of\nAustralia, Africa, and the Pacific coast of America. Even in the most\nenlightened nations still appear popular beliefs, observances, or\nsayings, drawn from this earlier phase of thought.\n\nBetween the prehistoric savage developing this theory, and therefore\nendeavouring to deal with the powers of Nature by magic, and the modern\nman who has outgrown it, appears a long line of nations struggling\nupward through it. As the hieroglyphs, cuneiform inscriptions, and\nvarious other records of antiquity are read, the development of this\nbelief can be studied in Egypt, India, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, and\nPhoenicia. From these civilizations it came into the early thought of\nGreece and Rome, but especially into the Jewish and Christian sacred\nbooks. Both in the Old Testament and in the New we find magic,\nwitchcraft, and soothsaying constantly referred to as realities.(266)\n\n\n\n     (266) For magic in prehistoric times and survivals of it since, with\nabundant citation of authorities, see Tylor, Primitive Culture, chap.\niv; also The Early History of Mankind, by the same author, third\nedition, pp. 115 et seq., also p. 380.; also Andrew Lang, Myth, Ritual,\nand Religion, vol. i, chap iv. For magic in Egypt, see Lenormant,\nChaldean Magic, chaps. vi-viii; also Maspero, Histoire Ancienne des\nPeuples de l'Orient; also Maspero and Sayce, The Dawn of Civilization,\np. 282, and for the threat of magicians to wreck heaven, see ibid, p.\n17, note, and especially the citations from Chabas, Le Papyrus Magique\nHarris, in chap. vii; also Maury, La Magie et l'Astrologie dans\nl'Antiquite et au Moyen Age. For magic in Chaldea, see Lenormant as\nabove; also Maspero and Sayce, pp. 780 et seq. For examples of magical\npowers in India, see Max Muller's Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvi,\npp. 121 et seq. For a legendary view of magic in Media, see the Zend\nAvesta, part i, p. 14, translated by Darmsteter; and for a more highly\ndeveloped view, see the Zend Avesta, part iii, p. 239, translated by\nMill. For magic in Greece and Rome, and especially in the Neoplatonic\nschool, as well as in the Middle Ages, see especially Maury, La Magie\net l'Astrologie, chaps. iii-v. For various sorts of magic recognised and\ncondemned in our sacred books, see Deuteronomy xviii, 10, 11; and for\nthe burning of magical books at Ephesus under the influence of St.\nPaul, see Acts xix, 14. See also Ewald, History of Israel, Martineau's\ntranslation, fourth edition, vol. iii, pp. 45-51. For a very elaborate\nsumming up of the passages in our sacred books recognizing magic as a\nfact, see De Haen, De Magia, Leipsic, 1775, chaps. i, ii, and iii, of\nthe first part. For the general subject of magic, see Ennemoser, History\nof Magic, translated by Howitt, which, however, constantly mixes sorcery\nwith magic proper.\n\n\nThe first distinct impulse toward a higher view of research into\nnatural laws was given by the philosophers of Greece. It is true that\nphilosophical opposition to physical research was at times strong, and\nthat even a great thinker like Socrates considered certain physical\ninvestigations as an impious intrusion into the work of the gods. It\nis also true that Plato and Aristotle, while bringing their thoughts\nto bear upon the world with great beauty and force, did much to draw\nmankind away from those methods which in modern times have produced the\nbest results.\n\nPlato developed a world in which the physical sciences had little if any\nreal reason for existing; Aristotle, a world in which the same sciences\nwere developed largely indeed by observation of what is, but still more\nby speculation on what ought to be. From the former of these two great\nmen came into Christian theology many germs of medieval magic, and from\nthe latter sundry modes of reasoning which aided in the evolution of\nthese; yet the impulse to human thought given by these great masters\nwas of inestimable value to our race, and one legacy from them was\nespecially precious--the idea that a science of Nature is possible, and\nthat the highest occupation of man is the discovery of its laws. Still\nanother gift from them was greatest of all, for they gave scientific\nfreedom. They laid no interdict upon new paths; they interposed no\nbarriers to the extension of knowledge; they threatened no doom in this\nlife or in the next against investigators on new lines; they left the\nworld free to seek any new methods and to follow any new paths which\nthinking men could find.\n\nThis legacy of belief in science, of respect for scientific pursuits,\nand of freedom in scientific research, was especially received by the\nschool of Alexandria, and above all by Archimedes, who began, just\nbefore the Christian era, to open new paths through the great field of\nthe inductive sciences by observation, comparison, and experiment.(267)\n\n\n     (267) As to the beginnings of physical science in Greece, and of\nthe theological opposition to physical science, also Socrates's view\nregarding certain branches as interdicted to human study, see Grote's\nHistory of Greece, vol. i, pp. 495 and 504, 505; also Jowett's\nintroduction to his translation of the Timaeus, and Whewell's History\nof the Inductive Sciences. For examples showing the incompatibility of\nPlato's methods in physical science with that pursued in modern times,\nsee Zeller, Plato and the Older Academy, English translation by Alleyne\nand Goodwin, pp. 375 et. seq. The supposed opposition to freedom of\nopinion in the Laws of Plato, toward the end of his life, can hardly\nmake against the whole spirit of Greek thought.\n\n\nThe establishment of Christianity, beginning a new evolution of\ntheology, arrested the normal development of the physical sciences for\nover fifteen hundred years. The cause of this arrest was twofold: First,\nthere was created an atmosphere in which the germs of physical science\ncould hardly grow--an atmosphere in which all seeking in Nature for\ntruth as truth was regarded as futile. The general belief derived from\nthe New Testament Scriptures was, that the end of the world was at\nhand; that the last judgment was approaching; that all existing physical\nnature was soon to be destroyed: hence, the greatest thinkers in the\nChurch generally poured contempt upon all investigators into a science\nof Nature, and insisted that everything except the saving of souls was\nfolly.\n\nThis belief appears frequently through the entire period of the Middle\nAges; but during the first thousand years it is clearly dominant. From\nLactantius and Eusebius, in the third century, pouring contempt, as\nwe have seen, over studies in astronomy, to Peter Damian, the noted\nchancellor of Pope Gregory VII, in the eleventh century, declaring all\nworldly sciences to be \"absurdities\" and \"fooleries,\" it becomes a very\nimportant element in the atmosphere of thought.(268)\n\n\n     (268) For the view of Peter Damian and others through the Middle Ages\nas to the futility of scientific investigation, see citations in Eicken,\nGeschichte und System der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, chap. vi.\n\n\nThen, too, there was established a standard to which all science which\ndid struggle up through this atmosphere must be made to conform--a\nstandard which favoured magic rather than science, for it was a standard\nof rigid dogmatism obtained from literal readings in the Jewish and\nChristian Scriptures. The most careful inductions from ascertained facts\nwere regarded as wretchedly fallible when compared with any view of\nnature whatever given or even hinted at in any poem, chronicle, code,\napologue, myth, legend, allegory, letter, or discourse of any sort which\nhad happened to be preserved in the literature which had come to be held\nas sacred.\n\nFor twelve centuries, then, the physical sciences were thus discouraged\nor perverted by the dominant orthodoxy. Whoever studied nature studied\nit either openly to find illustrations of the sacred text, useful in the\n\"saving of souls,\" or secretly to gain the aid of occult powers, useful\nin securing personal advantage. Great men like Bede, Isidore of Seville,\nand Rabanus Maurus, accepted the scriptural standard of science and used\nit as a means of Christian edification. The views of Bede and Isidore on\nkindred subjects have been shown in former chapters; and typical of the\nview taken by Rabanus is the fact that in his great work on the Universe\nthere are only two chapters which seem directly or indirectly to\nrecognise even the beginnings of a real philosophy of nature. A\nmultitude of less-known men found warrant in Scripture for magic applied\nto less worthy purposes.(269)\n\n\n     (269) As typical examples, see utterances of Eusibius and Lactantius\nregarding astronomers given in the chapter on Astronomy. For a summary\nof Rabanus Maurus's doctrine of physics, see Heller, Geschichte der\nPhysik, vol. i, pp. 172 et seq. For Bede and Isidore, see the earlier\nchapters of this work. For an excellent statement regarding the\napplication of scriptural standards to scientific research in the\nMiddle Ages, see Kretschemr, Die physische Erdkunde im christlichen\nMittelalter, pp. 5 et seq. For the distinctions in magic recognised in\nthe mediaeval Church, see the long catalogue of various sorts given in\nthe Abbe Migne's Encyclopedie Theologique, third series, article Magic.\n\n\nBut after the thousand years had passed to which various thinkers in the\nChurch, upon supposed scriptural warrant, had lengthened out the term of\nthe earth's existence, \"the end of all things\" seemed further off than\never; and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, owing to causes which\nneed not be dwelt upon here, came a great revival of thought, so that\nthe forces of theology and of science seemed arrayed for a contest. On\none side came a revival of religious fervour, and to this day the works\nof the cathedral builders mark its depth and strength; on the other side\ncame a new spirit of inquiry incarnate in a line of powerful thinkers.\n\nFirst among these was Albert of Bollstadt, better known as Albert the\nGreat, the most renowned scholar of his time. Fettered though he was by\nthe methods sanctioned in the Church, dark as was all about him, he\nhad conceived better methods and aims; his eye pierced the mists of\nscholasticism. he saw the light, and sought to draw the world toward it.\nHe stands among the great pioneers of physical and natural science; he\naided in giving foundations to botany and chemistry; he rose above his\ntime, and struck a heavy blow at those who opposed the possibility of\nhuman life on opposite sides of the earth; he noted the influence of\nmountains, seas, and forests upon races and products, so that Humboldt\njustly finds in his works the germs of physical geography as a\ncomprehensive science.\n\nBut the old system of deducing scientific truth from scriptural\ntexts was renewed in the development of scholastic theology, and\necclesiastical power, acting through thousands of subtle channels, was\nmade to aid this development. The old idea of the futility of physical\nscience and of the vast superiority of theology was revived. Though\nAlbert's main effort was to Christianize science, he was dealt with\nby the authorities of the Dominican order, subjected to suspicion and\nindignity, and only escaped persecution for sorcery by yielding to the\necclesiastical spirit of the time, and working finally in theological\nchannels by, scholastic methods.\n\nIt was a vast loss to the earth; and certainly, of all organizations\nthat have reason to lament the pressure of ecclesiasticism which turned\nAlbert the Great from natural philosophy to theology, foremost of all in\nregret should be the Christian Church, and especially the Roman branch\nof it. Had there been evolved in the Church during the thirteenth\ncentury a faith strong enough to accept the truths in natural science\nwhich Albert and his compeers could have given, and to have encouraged\ntheir growth, this faith and this encouragement would to this day have\nformed the greatest argument for proving the Church directly under\nDivine guidance; they would have been among the brightest jewels in\nher crown. The loss to the Church by this want of faith and courage has\nproved in the long run even greater than the loss to science.(270)\n\n\n     (270) For a very careful discussion of Albert's strength in\ninvestigation and weakness in yielding to scholastic authority, see\nKopp, Ansichten uber die Aufgabe der Chemie von Geber bis Stahl,\nBraunschweig, 1875, pp. 64 et seq. For a very extended and enthusiastic\nbiographical sketch, see Pouchet. For comparison of his work with that\nof Thomas Aquinas, see Milman, History of Latin Christianity, vol. vi,\np. 461. \"Il etat aussi tres-habile dans les arts mecaniques, ce que le\nfit soupconner d'etre sorcier\" (Sprengel, Histoire de la Medecine, vol.\nii, p. 389). For Albert's biography treated strictly in accordance\nwith ecclesiastical methods, see Albert the Great, by Joachim Sighart,\ntranslated by the Rev. T. A. Dickson, of the Order of Preachers,\npublished under the sanction of the Dominican censor and of the Cardinal\nArchbishop of Westminster, London, 1876. How an Englishman like Cardinal\nManning could tolerate among Englishmen such glossing over of historical\ntruth is one of the wonders of contemporary history. For choice\nspecimens, see chapters ii, and iv. For one of the best and most recent\nsummaries, see Heller, Geschichte der Physik, Stuttgart, 1882, vol. i,\npp. 179 et seq.\n\n\nThe next great man of that age whom the theological and ecclesiastical\nforces of the time turned from the right path was Vincent of Beauvais.\nDuring the first half of the twelfth century he devoted himself to the\nstudy of Nature in several of her most interesting fields. To astronomy,\nbotany, and zoology he gave special attention, but in a larger way\nhe made a general study of the universe, and in a series of treatises\nundertook to reveal the whole field of science. But his work simply\nbecame a vast commentary on the account of creation given in the book of\nGenesis. Beginning with the work of the Trinity at the creation, he\ngoes on to detail the work of angels in all their fields, and makes\nexcursions into every part of creation, visible and invisible, but\nalways with the most complete subordination of his thought to the\nliteral statements of Scripture. Could he have taken the path of\nexperimental research, the world would have been enriched with most\nprecious discoveries; but the force which had given wrong direction to\nAlbert of Bollstadt, backed as it was by the whole ecclesiastical power\nof his time, was too strong, and in all the life labour of Vincent\nnothing appears of any permanent value. He reared a structure which\nthe adaptation of facts to literal interpretations of Scripture and the\napplication of theological subtleties to nature combine to make one of\nthe most striking monuments of human error.(271)\n\n\n     (271) For Vincent de Beauvais, see Etudes sur Vincent de Beauvais, par\nl'Abbe Bourgeat, chaps. xii, xiii, and xiv; also Pouchet, Histoire des\nSciences Naturelles au Moyen Age, Paris, 1853, pp. 470 et seq; also\nother histories cited hereafter.\n\n\nBut the theological spirit of the thirteenth century gained its greatest\nvictory in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. In him was the theological\nspirit of his age incarnate. Although he yielded somewhat at one period\nto love of natural science, it was he who finally made that great treaty\nor compromise which for ages subjected science entirely to theology. He\nit was who reared the most enduring barrier against those who in that\nage and in succeeding ages laboured to open for science the path by its\nown methods toward its own ends.\n\nHe had been the pupil of Albert the Great, and had gained much from him.\nThrough the earlier systems of philosophy, as they were then known, and\nthrough the earlier theologic thought, he had gone with great labour\nand vigour; and all his mighty powers, thus disciplined and cultured, he\nbrought to bear in making a truce which was to give theology permanent\nsupremacy over science.\n\nThe experimental method had already been practically initiated: Albert\nof Bollstadt and Roger Bacon had begun their work in accordance with its\nmethods; but St. Thomas gave all his thoughts to bringing science again\nunder the sway of theological methods and ecclesiastical control. In his\ncommentary on Aristotle's treatise upon Heaven and Earth he gave to the\nworld a striking example of what his method could produce, illustrating\nall the evils which arise in combining theological reasoning and literal\ninterpretation of Scripture with scientific facts; and this work remains\nto this day a monument of scientific genius perverted by theology.(272)\n\n\n     (272) For citations showing this subordination of science to theology,\nsee Eicken, chap. vi.\n\n\nThe ecclesiastical power of the time hailed him as a deliverer, it was\nclaimed that miracles were vouchsafed, proving that the blessing of\nHeaven rested upon his labours, and among the legends embodying this\nclaim is that given by the Bollandists and immortalized by a renowned\npainter. The great philosopher and saint is represented in the habit\nof his order, with book and pen in hand, kneeling before the image\nof Christ crucified, and as he kneels the image thus addresses him:\n\"Thomas, thou hast written well concerning me; what price wilt thou\nreceive for thy labour?\" The myth-making faculty of the people at large\nwas also brought into play. According to a widespread and circumstantial\nlegend, Albert, by magical means, created an android--an artificial man,\nliving, speaking, and answering all questions with such subtlety that\nSt. Thomas, unable to answer its reasoning, broke it to pieces with his\nstaff.\n\nHistorians of the Roman Church like Rohrbacher, and historians of\nscience like Pouchet, have found it convenient to propitiate the Church\nby dilating upon the glories of St. Thomas Aquinas in thus making\nan alliance between religious and scientific thought, and laying the\nfoundations for a \"sanctified science\"; but the unprejudiced historian\ncan not indulge in this enthusiastic view: the results both for the\nChurch and for science have been most unfortunate. It was a wretched\ndelay in the evolution of fruitful thought, for the first result of this\ngreat man's great compromise was to close for ages that path in science\nwhich above all others leads to discoveries of value--the experimental\nmethod--and to reopen that old path of mixed theology and science which,\nas Hallam declares, \"after three or four hundred years had not untied\na single knot or added one unequivocal truth to the domain of\nphilosophy\"--the path which, as all modern history proves, has ever\nsince led only to delusion and evil.(273)\n\n\n     (273) For the work of Aquinas, see his Liber de Caelo et Mundo, section\nxx; also Life and Labours of St. Thomas of Aquin, by Archbishop Vaughn,\npp. 459 et seq. For his labours in natural science, see Hoefer, Histoire\nde la Chimie, Paris, 1843, vol. i, p. 381. For theological views of\nscience in the Middle Ages, and rejoicing thereat, see Pouchet, Hist.\ndes Sci. Nat. au Moyen Age, ubi supra. Pouchet says: \" En general au\nmilieu du moyen age les sciences sont essentiellement chretiennes,\nleur but est tout-a-fait religieux, et elles sembent beaucoup moins\ns'inquieter de l'avancement intellectuel de l'homme que de son salut\neternel.\" Pouchet calls this \"conciliation\" into a \"harmonieux ensemble\"\n\"la plus glorieuse des conquetes intellectuelles du moyen age.\" Pouchet\nbelongs to Rouen, and the shadow of the Rouen Cathedral seems thrown\nover all his history. See, also, l'Abbe Rohrbacher, Hist. de l'Eglise\nCatholique, Paris, 1858, vol. xviii, pp. 421 et seq. The abbe dilates\nupon the fact that \"the Church organizes the agreement of all the\nsciences by the labours of St. Thomas of Aquin and his contemporaries.\"\nFor the complete subordination of science to theology by St. Thomas, see\nEicken, chap. vi. For the theological character of science in the\nMiddle Ages, recognised by a Protestant philosophic historian, see the\nwell-known passage in Guizot, History of Civilization in Europe; and\nby a noted Protestant ecclesiatic, see Bishop Hampden's Life of Thomas\nAquinas, chaps. xxxvi, xxxvii; see also Hallam, Middle Ages, chap. ix.\nFor dealings of Pope John XXII, of the Kings of France and England, and\nof the Republic of Venice, see Figuier, L'Alchimie et la Alchimistes,\npp. 140, 141, where, in a note, the text of the bull Spondet paritur is\ngiven. For popular legends regarding Albert and St. Thomas, see Eliphas\nLevi, Hist. de la Magie, liv. iv, chap. iv.\n\n\nThe theological path thus opened by these strong men became the main\npath for science during ages, and it led the world ever further\nand further from any fruitful fact or useful method. Roger Bacon's\ninvestigations already begun were discredited: worthless mixtures of\nscriptural legends with imperfectly authenticated physical facts took\ntheir place. Thus it was that for twelve hundred years the minds in\ncontrol of Europe regarded all real science as FUTILE, and diverted the\ngreat current of earnest thought into theology.\n\nThe next stage in this evolution was the development of an idea which\nacted with great force throughout the Middle Ages--the idea that science\nis DANGEROUS. This belief was also of very ancient origin. From the time\nwhen the Egyptian magicians made their tremendous threat that unless\ntheir demands were granted they would reach out to the four corners of\nthe earth, pull down the pillars of heaven, wreck the abodes of the gods\nabove and crush those of men below, fear of these representatives of\nscience is evident in the ancient world.\n\nBut differences in the character of magic were recognised, some sorts\nbeing considered useful and some baleful. Of the former was magic used\nin curing diseases, in determining times auspicious for enterprises, and\neven in contributing to amusement; of the latter was magic used to bring\ndisease and death on men and animals or tempests upon the growing crops.\nHence gradually arose a general distinction between white magic, which\ndealt openly with the more beneficent means of nature, and black magic,\nwhich dealt secretly with occult, malignant powers.\n\nDown to the Christian era the fear of magic rarely led to any\npersecution very systematic or very cruel. While in Greece and Rome laws\nwere at times enacted against magicians, they were only occasionally\nenforced with rigour, and finally, toward the end of the pagan empire,\nthe feeling against them seemed dying out altogether. As to its more\nkindly phases, men like Marcus Aurelius and Julian did not hesitate to\nconsult those who claimed to foretell the future. As to black magic, it\nseemed hardly worth while to enact severe laws, when charms, amulets,\nand even gestures could thwart its worst machinations.\n\nMoreover, under the old empire a real science was coming in, and thought\nwas progressing. Both the theory and practice of magic were more and\nmore held up to ridicule. Even as early a writer as Ennius ridiculed\nthe idea that magicians, who were generally poor and hungry themselves,\ncould bestow wealth on others; Pliny, in his Natural Philosophy, showed\nat great length their absurdities and cheatery; others followed in the\nsame line of thought, and the whole theory, except among the very lowest\nclasses, seemed dying out.\n\nBut with the development of Christian theology came a change. The idea\nof the active interference of Satan in magic, which had come into the\nHebrew mind with especial force from Persia during the captivity of\nIsrael, had passed from the Hebrew Scriptures into Christianity, and\nhad been made still stronger by various statements in the New Testament.\nTheologians laid stress especially upon the famous utterances of the\nPsalmist that \"all the gods of the heathen are devils,\" and of St.\nPaul that \"the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice\nto devils\"; and it was widely held that these devils were naturally\nindignant at their dethronement and anxious to wreak vengeance upon\nChristianity. Magicians were held to be active agents of these dethroned\ngods, and this persuasion was strengthened by sundry old practitioners\nin the art of magic--impostors who pretended to supernatural powers, and\nwho made use of old rites and phrases inherited from paganism.\n\nHence it was that as soon as Christianity came into power it more than\nrenewed the old severities against the forbidden art, and one of the\nfirst acts of the Emperor Constantine after his conversion was to enact\na most severe law against magic and magicians, under which the main\noffender might be burned alive. But here, too, it should be noted that\na distinction between the two sorts of magic was recognised, for\nConstantine shortly afterward found it necessary to issue a proclamation\nstating that his intention was only to prohibit deadly and malignant\nmagic; that he had no intention of prohibiting magic used to cure\ndiseases and to protect the crops from hail and tempests. But as new\nemperors came to the throne who had not in them that old leaven of\npaganism which to the last influenced Constantine, and as theology\nobtained a firmer hold, severity against magic increased. Toleration of\nit, even in its milder forms, was more and more denied. Black magic and\nwhite were classed together.\n\nThis severity went on increasing and threatened the simplest efforts in\nphysics and chemistry; even the science of mathematics was looked upon\nwith dread. By the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the older theology\nhaving arrived at the climax of its development in Europe, terror of\nmagic and witchcraft took complete possession of the popular mind. In\nsculpture, painting, and literature it appeared in forms ever more and\nmore striking. The lives of saints were filled with it. The cathedral\nsculpture embodied it in every part. The storied windows made it all\nthe more impressive. The missal painters wrought it not only into prayer\nbooks, but, despite the fact that hardly a trace of the belief appears\nin the Psalms, they illustrated it in the great illuminated psalters\nfrom which the noblest part of the service was sung before the high\naltar. The service books showed every form of agonizing petition for\ndelivery from this dire influence, and every form of exorcism for\nthwarting it.\n\nAll the great theologians of the Church entered into this belief and\naided to develop it. The fathers of the early Church were full and\nexplicit, and the medieval doctors became more and more minute in\ndescribing the operations of the black art and in denouncing them.\nIt was argued that, as the devil afflicted Job, so he and his minions\ncontinue to cause diseases; that, as Satan is the Prince of the power\nof the air, he and his minions cause tempests; that the cases of\nNebuchadnezzar and Lot's wife prove that sorcerers can transform human\nbeings into animals or even lifeless matter; that, as the devils of\nGadara were cast into swine, all animals could be afflicted in the same\nmanner; and that, as Christ himself had been transported through the air\nby the power of Satan, so any human being might be thus transported to\n\"an exceeding high mountain.\"\n\nThus the horror of magic and witchcraft increased on every hand, and in\n1317 Pope John XXII issued his bull Spondent pariter, levelled at the\nalchemists, but really dealing a terrible blow at the beginnings of\nchemical science. That many alchemists were knavish is no doubt true,\nbut no infallibility in separating the evil from the good was shown by\nthe papacy in this matter. In this and in sundry other bulls and\nbriefs we find Pope John, by virtue of his infallibility as the world's\ninstructor in all that pertains to faith and morals, condemning real\nscience and pseudo-science alike. In two of these documents, supposed\nto be inspired by wisdom from on high, he complains that both he and\nhis flock are in danger of their lives by the arts of the sorcerers;\nhe declares that such sorcerers can send devils into mirrors and finger\nrings, and kill men and women by a magic word; that they had tried to\nkill him by piercing a waxen image of him with needles in the name\nof the devil. He therefore called on all rulers, secular and\necclesiastical, to hunt down the miscreants who thus afflicted the\nfaithful, and he especially increased the powers of inquisitors in\nvarious parts of Europe for this purpose.\n\nThe impulse thus given to childish fear and hatred against the\ninvestigation of nature was felt for centuries; more and more chemistry\ncame to be known as one of the \"seven devilish arts.\"\n\nThus began a long series of demonstrations against magic from the centre\nof Christendom. In 1437, and again in 1445, Pope Eugene IV issued\nbulls exhorting inquisitors to be more diligent in searching out and\ndelivering over to punishment magicians and witches who produced bad\nweather, the result being that persecution received a fearful impulse.\nBut the worst came forty years later still, when, in 1484, there came\nthe yet more terrible bull of Pope Innocent VIII, known as Summis\nDesiderantes, which let inquisitors loose upon Germany, with Sprenger\nat their head, armed with the Witch-Hammer, the fearful manual Malleus\nMaleficarum, to torture and destroy men and women by tens of thousands\nfor sorcery and magic. Similar bulls were issued in 1504 by Julius II,\nand in 1523 by Adrian VI.\n\nThe system of repression thus begun lasted for hundreds of years. The\nReformation did little to change it, and in Germany, where Catholics and\nProtestants vied with each other in proving their orthodoxy, it was at\nits worst. On German soil more than one hundred thousand victims\nare believed to have been sacrificed to it between the middle of the\nfifteenth and the middle of the sixteenth centuries.\n\nThus it was that from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas, from Aquinas\nto Luther, and from Luther to Wesley, theologians of both branches of\nthe Church, with hardly an exception, enforced the belief in magic and\nwitchcraft, and, as far as they had power, carried out the injunction,\n\"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"\n\nHow this was ended by the progress of scientific modes of thought I\nshall endeavour to show elsewhere: here we are only concerned with the\neffect of this widespread terrorism on the germs and early growth of the\nphysical sciences.\n\nOf course, the atmosphere created by this persecution of magicians was\ndeadly to any open beginnings of experimental science. The conscience of\nthe time, acting in obedience to the highest authorities of the Church,\nand, as was supposed, in defence of religion, now brought out a missile\nwhich it hurled against scientific investigators with deadly effect. The\nmediaeval battlefields of thought were strewn with various forms of it.\nThis missile was the charge of unlawful compact with Satan, and it was\nmost effective. We find it used against every great investigator of\nnature in those times and for ages after. The list of great men in\nthose centuries charged with magic, as given by Naude, is astounding; it\nincludes every man of real mark, and in the midst of them stands one of\nthe most thoughtful popes, Sylvester II (Gerbert), and the foremost of\nmediaeval thinkers on natural science, Albert the Great. It came to be\nthe accepted idea that, as soon as a man conceived a wish to study the\nworks of God, his first step must be a league with the devil.\n\nIt was entirely natural, then, that in 1163 Pope Alexander III, in\nconnection with the Council of Tours, forbade the study of physics to\nall ecclesiastics, which, of course, in that age meant prohibition of\nall such scientific studies to the only persons likely to make them.\nWhat the Pope then expressly forbade was, in the words of the papal\nbull, \"the study of physics or the laws of the world,\" and it was\nadded that any person violating this rule \"shall be avoided by all and\nexcommunicated.\"(274)\n\n\n     (274) For the charge of magic against scholars and others, see Naude,\nApologie pour les Grands Hommes soupconnes de Magie, passim; also Maury,\nHist. de la Magie, troisieme edition, pp. 214, 215; also Cuvier, Hist.\ndes Sciences Naturelles, vol. i, p. 396. For the prohibition by the\nCouncil of Tours and Alexander III, see the Acta Conciliorum (ed.\nHarduin), tom. vi, pars ii, p. 1598, Canon viii.\n\n\nThe first great thinker who, in spite of some stumbling into theologic\npitfalls, persevered in a truly scientific path, was Roger Bacon. His\nlife and works seem until recently to have been generally misunderstood:\nhe was formerly ranked as a superstitious alchemist who happened upon\nsome inventions, but more recent investigation has shown him to be one\nof the great masters in the evolution of human thought. The advance of\nsound historical judgment seems likely to bring the fame of the two who\nbear the name of Bacon nearly to equality. Bacon of the chancellorship\nand of the Novum Organum may not wane, but Bacon of the prison cell and\nthe Opus Majus steadily approaches him in brightness.\n\nMore than three centuries before Francis Bacon advocated the\nexperimental method, Roger Bacon practised it, and the results as now\nrevealed are wonderful. He wrought with power in many sciences, and his\nknowledge was sound and exact. By him, more than by any other man of\nthe Middle Ages, was the world brought into the more fruitful paths\nof scientific thought--the paths which have led to the most precious\ninventions; and among these are clocks, lenses, and burning specula,\nwhich were given by him to the world, directly or indirectly. In his\nwritings are found formulae for extracting phosphorus, manganese, and\nbismuth. It is even claimed, with much appearance of justice, that\nhe investigated the power of steam, and he seems to have very nearly\nreached some of the principal doctrines of modern chemistry. But it\nshould be borne in mind that his METHOD of investigation was even\ngreater than its RESULTS. In an age when theological subtilizing\nwas alone thought to give the title of scholar, he insisted on REAL\nreasoning and the aid of natural science by mathematics; in an age when\nexperimenting was sure to cost a man his reputation, and was likely\nto cost him his life, he insisted on experimenting, and braved all\nits risks. Few greater men have lived. As we follow Bacon's process of\nreasoning regarding the refraction of light, we see that he was divinely\ninspired.\n\nOn this man came the brunt of the battle. The most conscientious men\nof his time thought it their duty to fight him, and they fought him\nsteadily and bitterly. His sin was not disbelief in Christianity, not\nwant of fidelity to the Church, not even dissent from the main lines of\northodoxy; on the contrary, he showed in all his writings a desire\nto strengthen Christianity, to build up the Church, and to develop\northodoxy. He was attacked and condemned mainly because he did not\nbelieve that philosophy had become complete, and that nothing more was\nto be learned; he was condemned, as his opponents expressly declared,\n\"on account of certain suspicious novelties\"--\"propter quasdam novitates\nsuspectas.\"\n\nUpon his return to Oxford, about 1250, the forces of unreason beset him\non all sides. Greatest of all his enemies was Bonaventura. This enemy\nwas the theologic idol of the period: the learned world knew him as the\n\"seraphic Doctor\"; Dante gave him an honoured place in the great poem\nof the Middle Ages; the Church finally enrolled him among the saints. By\nforce of great ability in theology he had become, in the middle of the\nthirteenth century, general of the Franciscan order: thus, as Bacon's\nmaster, his hands were laid heavily on the new teaching, so that in 1257\nthe troublesome monk was forbidden to lecture; all men were solemnly\nwarned not to listen to his teaching, and he was ordered to Paris, to\nbe kept under surveillance by the monastic authorities. Herein was\nexhibited another of the myriad examples showing the care exercised over\nscientific teaching by the Church. The reasons for thus dealing with\nBacon were evident: First, he had dared attempt scientific explanations\nof natural phenomena, which under the mystic theology of the Middle\nAges had been referred simply to supernatural causes. Typical was his\nexplanation of the causes and character of the rainbow. It was clear,\ncogent, a great step in the right direction as regards physical science:\nbut there, in the book of Genesis, stood the legend regarding the origin\nof the rainbow, supposed to have been dictated immediately by the Holy\nSpirit; and, according to that, the \"bow in the cloud\" was not the\nresult of natural laws, but a \"sign\" arbitrarily placed in the heavens\nfor the simple purpose of assuring mankind that there was not to be\nanother universal deluge.\n\nBut this was not the worst: another theological idea was arrayed against\nhim--the idea of Satanic intervention in science; hence he was attacked\nwith that goodly missile which with the epithets \"infidel\" and \"atheist\"\nhas decided the fate of so many battles--the charge of magic and compact\nwith Satan.\n\nHe defended himself with a most unfortunate weapon--a weapon which\nexploded in his hands and injured him more than the enemy; for he argued\nagainst the idea of compacts with Satan, and showed that much which is\nascribed to demons results from natural means. This added fuel to the\nflame. To limit the power of Satan was deemed hardly less impious than\nto limit the power of God.\n\nThe most powerful protectors availed him little. His friend Guy of\nFoulques, having in 1265 been made Pope under the name of Clement IV,\nshielded him for a time; but the fury of the enemy was too strong, and\nwhen he made ready to perform a few experiments before a small audience,\nwe are told that all Oxford was in an uproar. It was believed that\nSatan was about to be let loose. Everywhere priests, monks, fellows,\nand students rushed about, their garments streaming in the wind, and\neverywhere rose the cry, \"Down with the magician!\" and this cry, \"Down\nwith the magician!\" resounded from cell to cell and from hall to hall.\n\nAnother weapon was also used upon the battlefields of science in that\ntime with much effect. The Arabs had made many noble discoveries in\nscience, and Averroes had, in the opinion of many, divided the honours\nwith St. Thomas Aquinas; these facts gave the new missile--it was the\nepithet \"Mohammedan\"; this, too, was flung with effect at Bacon.\n\nThe attack now began to take its final shape. The two great religious\norders, Franciscan and Dominican, then in all the vigour of their\nyouth, vied with each other in fighting the new thought in chemistry\nand physics. St. Dominic solemnly condemned research by experiment and\nobservation; the general of the Franciscan order took similar ground.\nIn 1243 the Dominicans interdicted every member of their order from the\nstudy of medicine and natural philosophy, and in 1287 this interdiction\nwas extended to the study of chemistry.\n\nIn 1278 the authorities of the Franciscan order assembled at Paris,\nsolemnly condemned Bacon's teaching, and the general of the Franciscans,\nJerome of Ascoli, afterward Pope, threw him into prison, where he\nremained for fourteen years, Though Pope Clement IV had protected him,\nPopes Nicholas III and IV, by virtue of their infallibility, decided\nthat he was too dangerous to be at large, and he was only released at\nthe age of eighty--but a year or two before death placed him beyond the\nreach of his enemies. How deeply the struggle had racked his mind may be\ngathered from that last affecting declaration of his, \"Would that I had\nnot given myself so much trouble for the love of science!\"\n\nThe attempt has been made by sundry champions of the Church to show that\nsome of Bacon's utterances against ecclesiastical and other corruptions\nin his time were the main cause of the severity which the Church\nauthorities exercised against him. This helps the Church but little,\neven if it be well based; but it is not well based. That some of his\nutterances of this sort made him enemies is doubtless true, but the\ncharges on which St. Bonaventura silenced him, and Jerome of Ascoli\nimprisoned him, and successive popes kept him in prison for fourteen\nyears, were \"dangerous novelties\" and suspected sorcery.\n\nSad is it to think of what this great man might have given to the world\nhad ecclesiasticism allowed the gift. He held the key of treasures\nwhich would have freed mankind from ages of error and misery. With his\ndiscoveries as a basis, with his method as a guide, what might not the\nworld have gained! Nor was the wrong done to that age alone; it was done\nto this age also. The nineteenth century was robbed at the same\ntime with the thirteenth. But for that interference with science the\nnineteenth century would be enjoying discoveries which will not be\nreached before the twentieth century, and even later. Thousands of\nprecious lives shall be lost, tens of thousands shall suffer discomfort,\nprivation, sickness, poverty, ignorance, for lack of discoveries and\nmethods which, but for this mistaken dealing with Roger Bacon and his\ncompeers, would now be blessing the earth.\n\nIn two recent years sixty thousand children died in England and in Wales\nof scarlet fever; probably quite as many died in the United States. Had\nnot Bacon been hindered, we should have had in our hands, by this time,\nthe means to save two thirds of these victims; and the same is true\nof typhoid, typhus, cholera, and that great class of diseases of\nwhose physical causes science is just beginning to get an inkling. Put\ntogether all the efforts of all the atheists who have ever lived, and\nthey have not done so much harm to Christianity and the world as has\nbeen done by the narrow-minded, conscientious men who persecuted Roger\nBacon, and closed the path which he gave his life to open.\n\nBut despite the persecution of Bacon and the defection of those who\nought to have followed him, champions of the experimental method rose\nfrom time to time during the succeeding centuries. We know little of\nthem personally; our main knowledge of their efforts is derived from the\nendeavours of their persecutors.\n\nUnder such guidance the secular rulers were naturally vigorous. In\nFrance Charles V forbade, in 1380, the possession of furnaces and\napparatus necessary for chemical processes; under this law the chemist\nJohn Barrillon was thrown into prison, and it was only by the greatest\neffort that his life was saved. In England Henry IV, in 1404, issued a\nsimilar decree. In Italy the Republic of Venice, in 1418, followed these\nexamples. The judicial torture and murder of Antonio de Dominis were not\nsimply for heresy his investigations in the phenomena of light were\nan additional crime. In Spain everything like scientific research was\ncrushed out among Christians. Some earnest efforts were afterward made\nby Jews and Moors, but these were finally ended by persecution; and to\nthis hour the Spanish race, in some respects the most gifted in Europe,\nwhich began its career with everything in its favour and with every form\nof noble achievement, remains in intellectual development behind every\nother in Christendom.\n\nTo question the theological view of physical science was, even long\nafter the close of the Middle Ages, exceedingly perilous. We have seen\nhow one of Roger Bacon's unpardonable offences was his argument against\nthe efficacy of magic, and how, centuries afterward, Cornelius Agrippa,\nWeyer, Flade, Loos, Bekker, and a multitude of other investigators and\nthinkers, suffered confiscation of property, loss of position, and even\ntorture and death, for similar views.(275)\n\n\n     (275) For an account of Bacon's treatise, De Nullitate Magiae, see\nHoefer. For the uproar caused by Bacon's teaching at Oxford, see Kopp,\nGeschichte der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1869, vol. i, p. 63; and for a\nsomewhat reactionary discussion of Bacon's relation to the progress\nof chemistry, see a recent work by the same author, Ansichten uber die\nAufgabe der Chemie, Braunschweig, 1874, pp. 85 et seq.; also, for an\nexcellent summary, see Hoefer, Hist. de la Chimie, vol. i, pp. 368 et\nseq. For probably the most thorough study of Bacon's general works\nin science, and for his views of the universe, see Prof. Werner, Die\nKosmologie und allgemeine Naturlehre des Roger Baco, Wein, 1879. For\nsummaries of his work in other fields, see Whewell, vol. i, pp. 367,\n368; Draper, p. 438; Saisset, Descartes et ses Precurseurs, deuxieme\nedition, pp. 397 et seq.; Nourrisson, Progres de la Pensee humaine, pp.\n271, 272; Sprengel, Histoire de la Medecine, Paris, 1865, vol. ii, p.\n397; Cuvier, Histoire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. i, p. 417. As to\nBacon's orthodoxy, see Saisset, pp. 53, 55. For special examination of\ncauses of Bacon's condemnation, see Waddington, cited by Saisset, p.\n14. For a brief but admirable statement of Roger Bacon's realtion to\nthe world in his time, and of what he might have done had he not been\nthwarted by theology, see Dollinger, Studies in European History,\nEnglish translation, London, 1890, pp. 178, 179. For a good example of\nthe danger of denying the full power of Satan, even in much more recent\ntimes and in a Protestant country, see account of treatment in Bekker's\nMonde Enchante by the theologians of Holland, in Nisard, Histoire des\nLivres Populaires, vol. i, pp. 172, 173. Kopp, in his Ansichten, pushes\ncriticism even to some scepticism as to Roger Bacon being the DISCOVERER\nof many of the things generally attributed to him; but, after all\ndeductions are carefully made, enough remains to make Bacon the greatest\nbenefactor to humanity during the Middle Ages. For Roger Bacon's\ndeep devotion to religion and the Church, see citation and remarks in\nSchneider, Roger Bacon, Augsburg, 1873, p. 112; also, citation from\nthe Opus Majus, in Eicken, chap. vi. On Bacon as a \"Mohammedan,\" see\nSaisset, p. 17. For the interdiction of studies in physical science by\nthe Dominicans and Franciscans, see Henri Martin, Histoire de France,\nvol. iv, p. 283. For suppression of chemical teaching by the Parliament\nof Paris, see ibid., vol. xii, pp. 14, 15. For proofs that the world is\nsteadily working toward great discoveries as to the cause and prevention\nof zymotic diseases and their propogation, see Beale's Disease Germs,\nBaldwin Latham's Sanitary Engineering, Michel Levy's Traite a Hygiene\nPublique et Privee. For a summary of the bull Spondent pariter, and for\nan example of injury done by it, see Schneider, Geschichte der\nAlchemie, p. 160; and for a studiously moderate statement, Milman, Latin\nChristianity, book xii, chap. vi. For character and general efforts of\nJohn XXII, see Lea, Inquisition, vol. iii, p. 436, also pp. 452 et seq.\nFor the character of the two papal briefs, see Rydberg, p. 177. For\nthe bull Summis Desiderantes, see previous chapters of this work. For\nAntonio de Dominis, see Montucla, Hist. des Mathematiques, vol. i, p.\n705; Humboldt, Cosmos; Libri, vol. iv, pp. 145 et seq. For Weyer, Flade,\nBekker, Loos, and others, see the chapters of this work on Meteorology,\nDemoniacal Possession and Insanity, and Diabolism and Hysteria.\n\n\nThe theological atmosphere, which in consequence settled down about the\ngreat universities and colleges, seemed likely to stifle all scientific\neffort in every part of Europe, and it is one of the great wonders in\nhuman history that in spite of this deadly atmosphere a considerable\nbody of thinking men, under such protection as they could secure, still\npersisted in devoting themselves to the physical sciences.\n\nIn Italy, in the latter half of the sixteenth century, came a striking\nexample of the difficulties which science still encountered even after\nthe Renaissance had undermined the old beliefs. At that time John\nBaptist Porta was conducting his investigations, and, despite a\nconsiderable mixture of pseudo-science, they were fruitful. His was not\n\"black magic,\" claiming the aid of Satan, but \"white magic,\" bringing\ninto service the laws of nature--the precursor of applied science. His\nbook on meteorology was the first in which sound ideas were broached\non this subject; his researches in optics gave the world the camera\nobscura, and possibly the telescope; in chemistry he seems to have been\nthe first to show how to reduce the metallic oxides, and thus to have\nlaid the foundation of several important industries. He did much to\nchange natural philosophy from a black art to a vigorous open science.\nHe encountered the old ecclesiastical policy. The society founded by him\nfor physical research, \"I Secreti,\" was broken up, and he was summoned\nto Rome by Pope Paul III and forbidden to continue his investigations.\n\nSo, too, in France. In 1624, some young chemists at Paris having taught\nthe experimental method and cut loose from Aristotle, the faculty of\ntheology beset the Parliament of Paris, and the Parliament prohibited\nthese new chemical researches under the severest penalties.\n\nThe same war continued in Italy. Even after the belief in magic had been\nseriously weakened, the old theological fear and dislike of physical\nscience continued. In 1657 occurred the first sitting of the Accademia\ndel Cimento at Florence, under the presidency of Prince Leopold de'\nMedici This academy promised great things for science; it was open\nto all talent; its only fundamental law was \"the repudiation of\nany favourite system or sect of philosophy, and the obligation to\ninvestigate Nature by the pure light of experiment\"; it entered into\nscientific investigations with energy. Borelli in mathematics, Redi in\nnatural history, and many others, enlarged the boundaries of knowledge.\nHeat, light, magnetism, electricity, projectiles, digestion, and the\nincompressibility of water were studied by the right method and with\nresults that enriched the world.\n\nThe academy was a fortress of science, and siege was soon laid to\nit. The votaries of scholastic learning denounced it as irreligious,\nquarrels were fomented, Leopold was bribed with a cardinal's hat and\ndrawn away to Rome, and, after ten years of beleaguering, the fortress\nfell: Borelli was left a beggar; Oliva killed himself in despair.\n\nSo, too, the noted Academy of the Lincei at times incurred the ill\nwill of the papacy by the very fact that it included thoughtful\ninvestigators. It was \"patronized\" by Pope Urban VIII in such manner as\nto paralyze it, and it was afterward vexed by Pope Gregory XVI. Even in\nour own time sessions of scientific associations were discouraged and\nthwarted by as kindly a pontiff as Pius IX.(276)\n\n\n     (276) For Porta, see the English translation of his main summary,\nNatural Magick, London, 1658. The first chapters are especially\ninteresting, as showing what the word \"magic\" had come to mean in the\nmind of a man in whom mediaeval and modern ideas were curiously mixed;\nsee also Hoefer, Histoire de la Chimie, vol. ii, pp. 102-106; also\nKopp; also Sprengel, Histoire de la Medecine, vol. iii, p. 239; also\nMusset-Pathay. For the Accademia del Cimento, see Napier, Florentine\nHistory, vol. v, p. 485; Tiraboschi, Storia della Litteratura; Henri\nMartin, Histoire de France; Jevons, Principles of Science, vol. ii,\npp. 36-40. For value attached to Borelli's investigations by Newton and\nHuygens, see Brewster's Life of Sir Isaac Newton, London, 1875, pp. 128,\n129. Libri, in his first Essai sur Galilee, p. 37, says that Oliva was\nsummoned to Rome and so tortured by the Inquisition that, to escape\nfurther cruelty, he ended his life by throwing himself from a window.\nFor interference by Pope Gregory XVI with the Academy of the Lincei, and\nwith public instruction generally, see Carutti, Storia della Accademia\ndei Lincei, p. 126. Pius IX, with all his geniality, seems to have\nallowed his hostility to voluntary associations to carry him very far\nat times. For his answer to an application made through Lord Odo Russell\nregarding a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals and his\nanswer that \"such an association could not be sanctioned by the Holy\nSee, being founded on a theological error, to wit, that Christians owed\nany duties to animals,\" see Frances Power Cobbe, Hopes of the Human\nRace, p. 207.\n\n\nA hostility similar in kind, though less in degree, was shown in\nProtestant countries.\n\nEven after Thomasius in Germany and Voltaire in France and Beccaria\nin Italy had given final blows to the belief in magic and witchcraft\nthroughout Christendom, the traditional orthodox distrust of the\nphysical sciences continued for a long time.\n\nIn England a marked dislike was shown among various leading\necclesiastics and theologians towards the Royal Society, and later\ntoward the Association for the Advancement of Science; and this dislike,\nas will hereafter be seen, sometimes took shape in serious opposition.\n\nAs a rule, both in Protestant and Catholic countries instruction\nin chemistry and physics was for a long time discouraged by Church\nauthorities; and, when its suppression was no longer possible, great\npains were taken to subordinate it to instruction supposed to be more\nfully in accordance with the older methods of theological reasoning.\n\nI have now presented in outline the more direct and open struggle of the\nphysical sciences with theology, mainly as an exterior foe. We will next\nconsider their warfare with the same foe in its more subtle form, mainly\nas a vitiating and sterilizing principle in science itself.\n\nWe have seen thus far, first, how such men as Eusebius, Lactantius, and\ntheir compeers, opposed scientific investigation as futile; next, how\nsuch men as Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the multitude who\nfollowed them, turned the main current of medieval thought from science\nto theology; and, finally, how a long line of Church authorities from\nPopes John XXII and Innocent VIII, and the heads of the great religious\norders, down to various theologians and ecclesiastics, Catholic and\nProtestant, of a very recent period, endeavoured first to crush and\nafterward to discourage scientific research as dangerous.\n\nYet, injurious as all this was to the evolution of science, there was\ndeveloped something in many respects more destructive; and this was\nthe influence of mystic theology, penetrating, permeating, vitiating,\nsterilizing nearly every branch of science for hundreds of years. Among\nthe forms taken by this development in the earlier Middle Ages we find a\nmixture of physical science with a pseudo-science obtained from texts\nof Scripture. In compounding this mixture, Jews and Christians vied\nwith each other. In this process the sacred books were used as a fetich;\nevery word, every letter, being considered to have a divine and hidden\nmeaning. By combining various scriptural letters in various abstruse\nways, new words of prodigious significance in magic were obtained, and\namong them the great word embracing the seventy-two mystical names of\nGod--the mighty word \"Schemhamphoras.\" Why should men seek knowledge\nby observation and experiment in the book of Nature, when the book of\nRevelation, interpreted by the Kabbalah, opened such treasures to the\ningenious believer?\n\nSo, too, we have ancient mystical theories of number which the\ntheological spirit had made Christian, usurping an enormous place in\nmedieval science. The sacred power of the number three was seen in the\nTrinity; in the three main divisions of the universe--the empyrean, the\nheavens, and the earth; in the three angelic hierarchies; in the three\nchoirs of seraphim, cherubim, and thrones; in the three of dominions,\nvirtues, and powers; in the three of principalities, archangels,\nand angels; in the three orders in the Church--bishops, priests, and\ndeacons; in the three classes--the baptized, the communicants, and the\nmonks; in the three degrees of attainment--light, purity, and knowledge;\nin the three theological virtues--faith, hope, and charity--and in much\nelse. All this was brought into a theologico-scientific relation,\nthen and afterward, with the three dimensions of space; with the three\ndivisions of time--past, present, and future; with the three realms of\nthe visible world--sky, earth, and sea; with the three constituents\nof man--body, soul, and spirit; with the threefold enemies of\nman--the world, the flesh, and the devil; with the three kingdoms in\nnature--mineral, vegetable, and animal; with \"the three colours\"--red,\nyellow, and blue; with \"the three eyes of the honey-bee\"--and with a\nmultitude of other analogues equally precious. The sacred power of the\nnumber seven was seen in the seven golden candlesticks and the seven\nchurches in the Apocalypse; in the seven cardinal virtues and the seven\ndeadly sins; in the seven liberal arts and the seven devilish arts, and,\nabove all, in the seven sacraments. And as this proved in astrology that\nthere could be only seven planets, so it proved in alchemy that there\nmust be exactly seven metals. The twelve apostles were connected with\nthe twelve signs in the zodiac, and with much in physical science.\nThe seventy-two disciples, the seventy-two interpreters of the Old\nTestament, the seventy-two mystical names of God, were connected with\nthe alleged fact in anatomy that there were seventy-two joints in the\nhuman frame.\n\nThen, also, there were revived such theologic and metaphysical\nsubstitutes for scientific thought as the declaration that the perfect\nline is a circle, and hence that the planets must move in absolute\ncircles--a statement which led astronomy astray even when the\ngreat truths of the Copernican theory were well in sight; also, the\ndeclaration that nature abhors a vacuum--a statement which led physics\nastray until Torricelli made his experiments; also, the declaration that\nwe see the lightning before we hear the thunder because \"sight is nobler\nthan hearing.\"\n\nIn chemistry we have the same theologic tendency to magic, and, as a\nresult, a muddle of science and theology, which from one point of view\nseems blasphemous and from another idiotic, but which none the less\nsterilized physical investigation for ages. That debased Platonism which\nhad been such an important factor in the evolution of Christian theology\nfrom the earliest days of the Church continued its work. As everything\nin inorganic nature was supposed to have spiritual significance, the\ndoctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation were turned into an argument\nin behalf of the philosopher's stone; arguments for the scheme of\nredemption and for transubstantiation suggested others of similar\nconstruction to prove the transmutation of metals; the doctrine of the\nresurrection of the human body was by similar mystic jugglery connected\nwith the processes of distillation and sublimation. Even after the\nMiddle Ages were past, strong men seemed unable to break away from such\nreasoning as this--among them such leaders as Basil Valentine in the\nfifteenth century, Agricola in the sixteenth, and Van Helmont in the\nseventeenth.\n\nThe greatest theologians contributed to the welter of unreason from\nwhich this pseudo-science was developed. One question largely discussed\nwas, whether at the Redemption it was necessary for God to take the\nhuman form. Thomas Aquinas answered that it was necessary, but William\nOccam and Duns Scotus answered that it was not; that God might have\ntaken the form of a stone, or of a log, or of a beast. The possibilities\nopened to wild substitutes for science by this sort of reasoning were\ninfinite. Men have often asked how it was that the Arabians\naccomplished so much in scientific discovery as compared with Christian\ninvestigators; but the answer is easy: the Arabians were comparatively\nfree from these theologic allurements which in Christian Europe\nflickered in the air on all sides, luring men into paths which led\nno-whither.\n\nStrong investigators, like Arnold of Villanova, Raymond Lully, Basil\nValentine, Paracelsus, and their compeers, were thus drawn far out\nof the only paths which led to fruitful truths. In a work generally\nascribed to the first of these, the student is told that in mixing his\nchemicals he must repeat the psalm Exsurge Domine, and that on certain\nchemical vessels must be placed the last words of Jesus on the cross.\nVincent of Beauvais insisted that, as the Bible declares that Noah, when\nfive hundred years old, had children born to him, he must have possessed\nalchemical means of preserving life; and much later Dickinson insisted\nthat the patriarchs generally must have owed their long lives to such\nmeans. It was loudly declared that the reality of the philosopher's\nstone was proved by the words of St. John in the Revelation. \"To him\nthat overcometh I will give a white stone.\" The reasonableness of\nseeking to develop gold out of the baser metals was for many generations\nbased upon the doctrine of the resurrection of the physical body, which,\nthough explicitly denied by St. Paul, had become a part of the creed\nof the Church. Martin Luther was especially drawn to believe in the\nalchemistic doctrine of transmutation by this analogy. The Bible was\neverywhere used, both among Protestants and Catholics, in support of\nthese mystic adulterations of science, and one writer, as late as 1751,\nbased his alchemistic arguments on more than a hundred passages of\nScripture. As an example of this sort of reasoning, we have a proof that\nthe elect will preserve the philosopher's stone until the last judgment,\ndrawn from a passage in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, \"We have\nthis treasure in earthen vessels.\"\n\nThe greatest thinkers devoted themselves to adding new ingredients to\nthis strange mixture of scientific and theologic thought. The Catholic\nphilosophy of Thomas Aquinas, the Protestant mysticism of Jacob Boehme,\nand the alchemistic reveries of Basil Valentine were all cast into this\nseething mass.\n\nAnd when alchemy in its old form had been discredited, we find\nscriptural arguments no less perverse, and even comical, used on the\nother side. As an example of this, just before the great discoveries by\nStahl, we find the valuable scientific efforts of Becher opposed with\nthe following syllogism: \"King Solomon, according to the Scriptures,\npossessed the united wisdom of heaven and earth; but King Solomon knew\nnothing about alchemy (or chemistry in the form it then took), and sent\nhis vessels to Ophir to seek gold, and levied taxes upon his subjects;\nergo alchemy (or chemistry) has no reality or truth.\" And we find that\nBecher is absolutely turned away from his labours, and obliged to devote\nhimself to proving that Solomon used more money than he possibly could\nhave obtained from Ophir or his subjects, and therefore that he must\nhave possessed a knowledge of chemical methods and the philosopher's\nstone as the result of them.(277)\n\n\n     (277) For an extract from Agrippa's Occulta Philosophia, giving examples\nof the way in which mystical names were obtained from the Bible, see\nRydberg, Magic of the Middle Ages, pp. 143 et seq. For the germs of many\nmystic beliefs regarding number and the like, which were incorporated\ninto mediaeval theology, see Zeller, Plato and the Older Academy,\nEnglish translation, pp. 254 and 572, and elsewhere. As to the\nconnection of spiritual things with inorganic nature in relation to\nchemistry, see Eicken, p. 634. On the injury to science wrought by\nPlatonism acting through mediaeval theology, see Hoefer, Histoire de la\nChimie, vol. i, p. 90. As to the influence of mysticism upon strong men\nin science, see Hoefer; also Kopp, Geschichte der Alchemie, vol. i, p.\n211. For a very curious Catholic treatise on sacred numbers, see the\nAbbe Auber, Symbolisme Religieux, Paris, 1870; also Detzel, Christliche\nIkonographie, pp. 44 et seq.; and for an equally important Protestant\nwork, see Samuell, Seven the Sacred number, London 1887. It is\ninteresting to note that the latter writer, having been forced to give\nup the seven planets, consoles himself with the statement that \"the\nearth is the seventh planet, counting from Neptune and calling the\nasteroids one\" (see p. 426). For the electrum magicum, the seven\nmetals composing it, and its wonderful qualities, see extracts from\nParacelsus's writings in Hartmann's Life of Paracelsus, London, 1887,\npp. 168 et seq. As to the more rapid transition of light than sound, the\nfollowing expresses the scholastic method well: \"What is the cause why\nwe see sooner the lightning than we heare the thunder clappe? That is\nbecause our sight is both nobler and sooner perceptive of its object\nthan our eare; as being the more active part, and priore to our hearing:\nbesides, the visible species are more subtile and less corporeal than\nthe audible species.\"--Person's Varieties, Meteors, p. 82. For Basil\nValentine's view, see Hoefer, vol. i, pp. 453-465; Schmieder, Geschichte\nder Alchemie, pp. 197-209; Allgemeine deutsche Biographies, article\nBasilius. For the discussions referred to on possibilities of God\nassuming forms of stone, or log, or beast, see Lippert, Christenthum,\nVolksglaube, und Volksbrauch, pp. 372, 373, where citations are given,\netc. For the syllogism regarding Solomon, see Figuier, L'Alchimie et les\nAlchimistes, pp. 106, 107. For careful appreciation of Becher's position\nin the history of chemistry, see Kopp, Ansichten uber die Aufgabe der\nChemie, etc., von Geber bis Stahl, Braunschweig, 1875, pp. 201 et seq.\nFor the text proving the existence of the philosopher's stone from the\nbook of Revelation, see Figuier, p. 22.\n\n\nOf the general reasoning enforced by theology regarding physical\nscience, every age has shown examples; yet out of them all I will select\nbut two, and these are given because they show how this mixture\nof theological with scientific ideas took hold upon the strongest\nsupporters of better reasoning even after the power of medieval theology\nseemed broken.\n\nThe first of these examples is Melanchthon. He was the scholar of the\nReformation, and justly won the title \"Preceptor of Germany.\" His mind\nwas singularly open, his sympathies broad, and his usual freedom from\nbigotry drew down upon him that wrath of Protestant heresy-hunters\nwhich embittered the last years of his life and tortured him upon his\ndeathbed. During his career at the University of Wittenberg he gave a\ncourse of lectures on physics, and in these he dwelt upon scriptural\ntexts as affording scientific proofs, accepted the interference of the\ndevil in physical phenomena as in other things, and applied the medieval\nmethod throughout his whole work.(278)\n\n\n     (278) For Melanchthon's ideas on physics, see his Initia Doctrinae\nPhysicae, Wittenberg, 1557, especially pp. 243 and 274; also in vol.\nxiii of Bretschneider's edition of the collected works, and especially\npp. 339-343.\n\n\nYet far more remarkable was the example, a century later, of the man who\nmore than any other led the world out of the path opened by Aquinas,\nand into that through which modern thought has advanced to its greatest\nconquests. Strange as it may at first seem, Francis Bacon, whose\nkeenness of sight revealed the delusions of the old path and the\npromises of the new, and whose boldness did so much to turn the world\nfrom the old path into the new, presents in his own writings one of the\nmost striking examples of the evil he did so much to destroy.\n\nThe Novum Organon, considering the time when it came from his pen, is\ndoubtless one of the greatest exhibitions of genius in the history of\nhuman thought. It showed the modern world the way out of the scholastic\nmethod and reverence for dogma into the experimental method and\nreverence for fact. In it occur many passages which show that the\ngreat philosopher was fully alive to the danger both to religion and to\nscience arising from their mixture. He declares that the \"corruption of\nphilosophy from superstition and theology introduced the greatest amount\nof evil both into whole systems of philosophy and into their parts.\" He\ndenounces those who \"have endeavoured to found a natural philosophy on\nthe books of Genesis and Job and other sacred Scriptures, so 'seeking\nthe dead among the living.'\" He speaks of the result as \"an unwholesome\nmixture of things human and divine; not merely fantastic philosophy, but\nheretical religion.\"\n\nHe refers to the opposition of the fathers to the doctrine of the\nrotundity of the earth, and says that, \"thanks to some of them, you may\nfind the approach to any kind of philosophy, however improved, entirely\nclosed up.\" He charges that some of these divines are \"afraid lest\nperhaps a deeper inquiry into nature should, penetrate beyond the\nallowed limits of sobriety\"; and finally speaks of theologians as\nsometimes craftily conjecturing that, if science be little understood,\n\"each single thing can be referred more easily to the hand and rod of\nGod,\" and says, \"THIS IS NOTHING MORE OR LESS THAN WISHING TO PLEASE GOD\nBY A LIE.\"\n\nNo man who has reflected much upon the annals of his race can, without a\nfeeling of awe, come into the presence of such clearness of insight and\nboldness of utterance, and the first thought of the reader is that, of\nall men, Francis Bacon is the most free from the unfortunate bias he\ncondemns; that he, certainly, can not be deluded into the old path.\nBut as we go on through his main work we are surprised to find that the\nstrong arm of Aquinas has been stretched over the intervening ages, and\nhas laid hold upon this master-thinker of the seventeenth century; for\nonly a few chapters beyond those containing the citations already made\nwe find Bacon alluding to the recent voyage of Columbus, and speaking of\nthe prophecy of Daniel regarding the latter days, that \"many shall\nrun to and fro, and knowledge be increased,\" as clearly signifying\n\"that... the circumnavigation of the world and the increase of science\nshould happen in the same age.\"(279)\n\n\n     (279) See the Novum Organon, translated by the Rev. G. W. Kitchin,\nOxford, 1855, chaps. lxv and lxxxix.\n\n\nIn his great work on the Advancement of Learning the firm grasp which\nthe methods he condemned held upon him is shown yet more clearly. In the\nfirst book of it he asserts that \"that excellent book of Job, if it\nbe revolved with diligence, will be found pregnant and swelling with\nnatural philosophy,\" and he endeavours to show that in it the \"roundness\nof the earth,\" the \"fixing of the stars, ever standing at equal\ndistances,\" the \"depression of the southern pole,\" the \"matter of\ngeneration,\" and \"matter of minerals\" are \"with great elegancy noted.\"\nBut, curiously enough, he uses to support some of these truths the very\ntexts which the fathers of the Church used to destroy them, and those\nfor which he finds Scripture warrant most clearly are such as science\nhas since disproved. So, too, he says that Solomon was enabled in his\nProverbs, \"by donation of God, to compile a natural history of all\nverdure.\"(280)\n\n\n     (280) See Bacon, Advancement of Learning, edited by W. Aldis Wright,\nLondon, 1873, pp. 47, 48. Certainly no more striking examples of the\nstrength of the evil which he had all along been denouncing could be\nexhibited that these in his own writings. Nothing better illustrates the\nsway of the mediaeval theology, or better explains his blindness to the\ndiscoveries of Copernicus and to the experiments of Gilbert. For a\nvery contemptuous statement of Lord Bacon's claim to his position as\na philosopher, see Lange, Geschichte des Materialismus, Leipsic, 1872,\nvol i, p. 219. For a more just statement, see Brewster, Life of Sir\nIsaac Newton, London, 1874, vol. ii, p. 298.\n\n\nSuch was the struggle of the physical sciences in general. Let us now\nlook briefly at one special example out of many, which reveals, as well\nas any, one of the main theories which prompted theological interference\nwith them.\n\nIt will doubtless seem amazing to many that for ages the weight of\ntheological thought in Christendom was thrown against the idea of the\nsuffocating properties of certain gases, and especially of carbonic\nacid. Although in antiquity we see men forming a right theory of gases\nin mines, we find that, early in the history of the Church, St. Clement\nof Alexandria put forth the theory that these gases are manifestations\nof diabolic action, and that, throughout Christendom, suffocation in\ncaverns, wells, and cellars was attributed to the direct action of evil\nspirits. Evidences of this view abound through the medieval period, and\nduring the Reformation period a great authority, Agricola, one of the\nmost earnest and truthful of investigators, still adhered to the\nbelief that these gases in mines were manifestations of devils, and he\nspecified two classes--one of malignant imps, who blow out the miners'\nlamps, and the other of friendly imps, who simply tease the workmen in\nvarious ways. He went so far as to say that one of these spirits in the\nSaxon mine of Annaberg destroyed twelve workmen at once by the power of\nhis breath.\n\nAt the end of the sixteenth century we find a writer on mineralogy\ncomplaining that the mines in France and Germany had been in large part\nabandoned on account of the \"evil spirits of metals which had taken\npossession of them.\"\n\nEven as late as the seventeenth century, Van Helmont, after he\nhad broken away from alchemy and opened one of the great paths to\nchemistry--even after he had announced to the world the existence of\nvarious gases and the mode of their generation--was not strong enough to\nfree himself from theologic bias; he still inclined to believe that the\ngases he had discovered, were in some sense living spirits, beneficent\nor diabolical.\n\nBut at various. periods glimpses of the truth had been gained. The\nancient view had not been entirely forgotten; and as far back as the\nfirst part of the thirteenth century Albert the Great suggested a\nnatural cause in the possibility of exhalations from minerals causing a\n\"corruption of the air\"; but he, as we have seen, was driven or\ndragged off into, theological studies, and the world relapsed into the\ntheological view.\n\nToward the end of the fifteenth century there had come a great genius\nladen with important truths in chemistry, but for whom the world was\nnot ready--Basil Valentine. His discoveries anticipated much that has\nbrought fame and fortune to chemists since, yet so fearful of danger was\nhe that his work was carefully concealed. Not until after his death was\nhis treatise on alchemy found, and even then it was for a long time not\nknown where and when he lived. The papal bull, Spondent pariter, and the\nvarious prohibitions it bred, forcing other alchemists to conceal their\nlaboratories, led him to let himself be known during his life at Erfurt\nsimply as an apothecary, and to wait until after his death to make a\nrevelation of truth which during his lifetime might have cost him dear.\nAmong the legacies of this greatest of the alchemists was the doctrine\nthat the air which asphyxiates workers in mines is similar to that which\nis produced by fermentation of malt, and a recommendation that, in\norder to drive away the evil and to prevent serious accidents, fires\nbe lighted and jets of steam used to ventilate the mines--stress being\nespecially laid upon the idea that the danger in the mines is produced\nby \"exhalations of metals.\"\n\nThanks to men like Valentine, this idea of the interference of Satan\nand his minions with the mining industry was gradually weakened, and the\nworking of the deserted mines was resumed; yet even at a comparatively\nrecent period we find it still lingering, and among leading divines in\nthe very heart of Protestant Germany. In 1715 a cellar-digger having\nbeen stifled at Jena, the medical faculty of the university decided\nthat the cause was not the direct action of the devil, but a deadly gas.\nThereupon Prof. Loescher, of the University of Wittenberg, entered a\nsolemn protest, declaring that the decision of the medical faculty was\n\"only a proof of the lamentable license which has so taken possession of\nus, and which, if we are not earnestly on our guard, will finally turn\naway from us the blessing of God.\"(281) But denunciations of this kind\ncould not hold back the little army of science; in spite of adverse\ninfluences, the evolution of physics and chemistry went on. More and\nmore there rose men bold enough to break away from theological methods\nand strong enough to resist ecclesiastical bribes and threats. As\nalchemy in its first form, seeking for the philosopher's stone and the\ntransmutation of metals, had given way to alchemy in its second form,\nseeking for the elixir of life and remedies more or less magical for\ndisease, so now the latter yielded to the search for truth as truth.\nMore and more the \"solemnly constituted impostors\" were resisted\nin every field. A great line of physicists and chemists began to\nappear.(282)\n\n\n     (281) For Loescher's protest, see Julian Schmidt, Geschichte des\ngeistigen Lebens, etc., vol. i, p. 319.\n\n\n     (282) For the general view of noxious gases as imps of Satan, see\nHoefer, Histoire de la Chimie, vol. i, p. 350; vol. ii, p. 48. For the\nwork of Black, Priestley, Bergmann, and others, see main authorities\nalready cited, and especially the admirable paper of Dr. R. G. Eccles on\nThe Evolution of Chemistry, New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1891. For the\ntreatment of Priesley, see Spence's Essays, London, 1892; also Rutt,\nLife and Correspondence of Priestley, vol. ii, pp. 115 et seq.\n\n\n\nII.\n\n\nJust at the middle of the seventeenth century, and at the very centre\nof opposition to physical science, Robert Boyle began the new epoch\nin chemistry. Strongly influenced by the writings of Bacon and the\ndiscoveries of Galileo, he devoted himself to scientific research,\nestablishing at Oxford a laboratory and putting into it a chemist from\nStrasburg. For this he was at once bitterly attacked. In spite of his\nhigh position, his blameless life, his liberal gifts to charity and\nlearning, the Oxford pulpit was especially severe against him, declaring\nthat his researches were destroying religion and his experiments\nundermining the university. Public orators denounced him, the wits\nridiculed him, and his associates in the peerage were indignant that\nhe should condescend to pursuits so unworthy. But Boyle pressed on. His\ndiscoveries opened new paths in various directions and gave an impulse\nto a succession of vigorous investigators. Thus began the long series of\ndiscoveries culminating those of Black, Bergmann, Cavendish, Priestley,\nand Lavoisier, who ushered in the chemical science of the nineteenth\ncentury.\n\nYet not even then without a sore struggle against unreason. And it\nmust here be noticed that this unreason was not all theological. The\nunreasoning heterodox when intrusted with irresponsible power can be as\nshort-sighted and cruel as the unreasoning orthodox. Lavoisier, one of\nthe best of our race, not only a great chemist but a true man, was\nsent to the scaffold by the Parisian mob, led by bigoted \"liberals\" and\natheists, with the sneer that the republic had no need of savants. As\nto Priestley, who had devoted his life to science and to every good\nwork among his fellow-men, the Birmingham mob, favoured by the Anglican\nclergymen who harangued them as \"fellow-churchmen,\" wrecked his house,\ndestroyed his library, philosophical instruments, and papers containing\nthe results of long years of scientific research, drove him into exile,\nand would have murdered him if they could have laid their hands upon\nhim. Nor was it entirely his devotion to rational liberty, nor even\nhis disbelief in the doctrine of the Trinity, which brought on this\ncatastrophe. That there was a deep distrust of his scientific pursuits,\nwas evident when the leaders of the mob took pains to use his electrical\napparatus to set fire to his papers.\n\nStill, though theological modes of thought continued to sterilize much\neffort in chemistry, the old influence was more and more thrown off,\nand truth sought more and more for truth's sake. \"Black magic\" with\nits Satanic machinery vanished, only reappearing occasionally\namong marvel-mongers and belated theologians. \"White magic\" became\nlegerdemain.\n\nIn the early years of the nineteenth century, physical research,\nthough it went on with ever-increasing vigour, felt in various ways the\nreaction which followed the French Revolution. It was not merely under\nthe Bourbons and Hapsburgs that resistance was offered; even in\nEngland the old spirit lingered long. As late as 1832, when the British\nAssociation for the Advancement of Science first visited Oxford, no\nless amiable a man than John Keble--at that time a power in the\nuniversity--condemned indignantly the conferring of honorary degrees\nupon the leading men thus brought together. In a letter of that date to\nDr. Pusey he complained bitterly, to use his own words, that \"the Oxford\ndoctors have truckled sadly to the spirit of the times in receiving the\nhotchpotch of philosophers as they did.\" It is interesting to know that\namong the men thus contemptuously characterized were Brewster, Faraday,\nand Dalton.\n\nNor was this a mere isolated exhibition of feeling; it lasted many\nyears, and was especially shown on both sides of the Atlantic in all\nhigher institutions of learning where theology was dominant. Down to a\nperiod within the memory of men still in active life, students in the\nsciences, not only at Oxford and Cambridge but at Harvard and Yale, were\nconsidered a doubtful if not a distinctly inferior class, intellectually\nand socially--to be relegated to different instructors and buildings,\nand to receive their degrees on a different occasion and with different\nceremonies from those appointed for students in literature. To the\nState University of Michigan, among the greater American institutions of\nlearning which have never possessed or been possessed by a theological\nseminary, belongs the honour of first breaking down this wall of\nseparation.\n\nBut from the middle years of the century chemical science progressed\nwith ever-accelerating force, and the work of Bunsen, Kirchhoff,\nDalton, and Faraday has, in the last years of the century, led up to\nthe establishment of Mendeleef's law, by which chemistry has become\npredictive, as astronomy had become predictive by the calculations of\nNewton, and biology by the discoveries of Darwin.\n\nWhile one succession of strong men were thus developing chemistry out\nof one form of magic, another succession were developing physics out of\nanother form.\n\nFirst in this latter succession may be mentioned that line of thinkers\nwho divined and reasoned out great physical laws--a line extending\nfrom Galileo and Kepler and Newton to Ohm and Faraday and Joule and\nHelmholtz. These, by revealing more and more clearly the reign of law,\nsteadily undermined the older theological view of arbitrary influence\nin nature. Next should be mentioned the line of profound observers, from\nGalileo and Torricelli to Kelvin. These have as thoroughly undermined\nthe old theologic substitution of phrases for facts. When Galileo\ndropped the differing weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, he began\nthe end of Aristotelian authority in physics. When Torricelli balanced a\ncolumn of mercury against a column of water and each of these against\na column of air, he ended the theologic phrase that \"nature abhors a\nvacuum.\" When Newton approximately determined the velocity of sound, he\nended the theologic argument that we see the flash before we hear the\nroar because \"sight is nobler than hearing.\" When Franklin showed that\nlightning is caused by electricity, and Ohm and Faraday proved that\nelectricity obeys ascertained laws, they ended the theological idea of a\ndivinity seated above the clouds and casting thunderbolts.\n\nResulting from the labour of both these branches of physical science,\nwe have the establishment of the great laws of the indestructibility\nof matter, the correlation of forces, and chemical affinity. Thereby is\nended, with various other sacred traditions, the theological theory of\na visible universe created out of nothing, so firmly imbedded in\nthe theological thought of the Middle Ages and in the Westminster\nCatechism.(283)\n\n\n     (283) For a reappearance of the fundamental doctrines of black magic\namong theologians, see Rev. Dr. Jewett, Professor of Pastoral Theology\nin the Prot. Episc. Gen. Theolog. Seminary of New York, Diabolology: The\nPerson and the Kingdom of Satan, New York, 1889. For their appearance\namong theosophists, see Eliphas Levi, Histoire de la Magie, especially\nthe final chapters. For opposition to Boyle and chemistry studies at\nOxford in the latter half of the seventeenth century, see the address\nof Prof. Dixon, F. R. S., before the British Association, 1894. For the\nrecent progress of chemistry, and opposition to its earlier development\nat Oxford, see Lord Salisbury's address as President of the British\nAssociation, in 1894. For the Protestant survival of the mediaeval\nassertion that the universe was created out of nothing, see the\nWestminster Catechism, question 15.\n\n\nIn our own time some attempt has been made to renew this war against\nthe physical sciences. Joseph de Maistre, uttering his hatred of them,\ndeclaring that mankind has paid too dearly for them, asserting that they\nmust be subjected to theology, likening them to fire--good when confined\nand dangerous when scattered about--has been one of the main leaders\namong those who can not relinquish the idea that our body of sacred\nliterature should be kept a controlling text-book of science. The only\neffect of such teachings has been to weaken the legitimate hold of\nreligion upon men.\n\nIn Catholic countries exertion has of late years been mainly confined to\nexcluding science or diluting it in university teachings. Early in the\npresent century a great effort was made by Ferdinand VII of Spain.\nHe simply dismissed the scientific professors from the University of\nSalamanca, and until a recent period there has been general exclusion\nfrom Spanish universities of professors holding to the Newtonian\nphysics. So, too, the contemporary Emperor of Austria attempted\nindirectly something of the same sort; and at a still later period\nPopes Gregory XVI and Pius IX discouraged, if they did not forbid, the\nmeetings of scientific associations in Italy. In France, war between\ntheology and science, which had long been smouldering, came in the years\n1867 and 1868 to an outbreak. Toward the end of the last century, after\nthe Church had held possession of advanced instruction for more than\na thousand years, and had, so far as it was able, kept experimental\nscience in servitude--after it had humiliated Buffon in natural science,\nthrown its weight against Newton in the physical sciences, and wrecked\nTurgot's noble plans for a system of public instruction--the French\nnation decreed the establishment of the most thorough and complete\nsystem of higher instruction in science ever known. It was kept under\nlay control and became one of the glories of France; but, emboldened by\nthe restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, the Church began to undermine\nthis hated system, and in 1868 had made such progress that all was ready\nfor the final assault.\n\nForemost among the leaders of the besieging party was the Bishop of\nOrleans, Dupanloup, a man of many winning characteristics and of great\noratorical power. In various ways, and especially in an open letter, he\nhad fought the \"materialism\" of science at Paris, and especially were\nhis attacks levelled at Profs. Vulpian and See and the Minister of\nPublic instruction, Duruy, a man of great merit, whose only crime was\ndevotion to the improvement of education and to the promotion of the\nhighest research in science.(284)\n\n\n     (284) For the exertions of the restored Bourbons to crush the\nuniversities of Spain, see Hubbard, Hist. Contemporaine de l'Espagne,\nParis, 1878, chaps. i and ii. For Dupanloup, Lettre a un Cardinal, see\nthe Revue de Therapeutique of 1868, p. 221.\n\n\nThe main attack was made rather upon biological science than upon\nphysics and chemistry, yet it was clear that all were involved together.\n\nThe first onslaught was made in the French Senate, and the storming\nparty in that body was led by a venerable and conscientious prelate,\nCardinal de Bonnechose, Archbishop of Rouen. It was charged by him and\nhis party that the tendencies of the higher scientific teaching at Paris\nwere fatal to religion and morality. Heavy missiles were hurled--such\nphrases as \"sapping the foundations,\" \"breaking down the bulwarks,\"\nand the like; and, withal, a new missile was used with much effect--the\nepithet \"materialist.\"\n\nThe results can be easily guessed: crowds came to the lecture-rooms of\nthe attacked professors, and the lecture-room of Prof. See, the chief\noffender, was crowded to suffocation.\n\nA siege was begun in due form. A young physician was sent by the\ncardinal's party into the heterodox camp as a spy. Having heard one\nlecture of Prof. See, he returned with information that seemed to\npromise easy victory to the besieging party: he brought a terrible\nstatement--one that seemed enough to overwhelm See, Vulpian, Duruy, and\nthe whole hated system of public instruction in France--the statement\nthat See had denied the existence of the human soul.\n\nCardinal Bonnechose seized the tremendous weapon at once. Rising in his\nplace in the Senate, he launched a most eloquent invective against the\nMinister of State who could protect such a fortress of impiety as the\nCollege of Medicine; and, as a climax, he asserted, on the evidence\nof his spy fresh from Prof. See's lecture-room, that the professor had\ndeclared, in his lecture of the day before, that so long as he had the\nhonour to hold his professorship he would combat the false idea of the\nexistence of the soul. The weapon seemed resistless and the wound fatal,\nbut M. Duruy rose and asked to be heard.\n\nHis statement was simply that he held in his hand documentary proofs\nthat Prof. See never made such a declaration. He held the notes used by\nProf. See in his lecture. Prof. See, it appeared, belonged to a school\nin medical science which combated certain ideas regarding medicine as an\nART. The inflamed imagination of the cardinal's heresy-hunting emissary\nhad, as the lecture-notes proved, led him to mistake the word \"art\" for\n\"ame,\" and to exhibit Prof. See as treating a theological when he was\ndiscussing a purely scientific question. Of the existence of the soul\nthe professor had said nothing.\n\nThe forces of the enemy were immediately turned; they retreated in\nconfusion, amid the laughter of all France; and a quiet, dignified\nstatement as to the rights of scientific instructors by Wurtz, dean of\nthe faculty, completed their discomfiture. Thus a well-meant attempt\nto check science simply ended in bringing ridicule on religion, and\nin thrusting still deeper into the minds of thousands of men that most\nmistaken of all mistaken ideas: the conviction that religion and science\nare enemies.(285)\n\n\n     (285) For a general account of the Vulpian and See matter, see Revue des\nDeux Mondes, 31 mai, 1868, \"Chronique de la Quinzaine,\" pp. 763-765. As\nto the result on popular thought, may be noted the following comment on\nthe affair by the Revue, which is as free as possible from anything\nlike rabid anti-ecclesiastical ideas: \"Elle a ete vraiment curieuse,\ninstructive, assez triste et meme un peu amusante.\" For Wurtz's\nstatement, see Revue de Therapeutique for 1868, p. 303.\n\n\nBut justice forbids raising an outcry against Roman Catholicism for\nthis. In 1864 a number of excellent men in England drew up a declaration\nto be signed by students in the natural sciences, expressing \"sincere\nregret that researches into scientific truth are perverted by some in\nour time into occasion for casting doubt upon the truth and authenticity\nof the Holy Scriptures.\" Nine tenths of the leading scientific men of\nEngland refused to sign it; nor was this all: Sir John Herschel, Sir\nJohn Bowring, and Sir W. R. Hamilton administered, through the press,\ncastigations which roused general indignation against the proposers of\nthe circular, and Prof. De Morgan, by a parody, covered memorial and\nmemorialists with ridicule. It was the old mistake, and the old result\nfollowed in the minds of multitudes of thoughtful young men.(286)\n\n\n     (286) De Morgan, Paradoxes, pp. 421-428; also Daubeny's Essays.\n\n\nAnd in yet another Protestant country this same mistake was made. In\n1868 several excellent churchmen in Prussia thought it their duty to\nmeet for the denunciation of \"science falsely so called.\" Two results\nfollowed: upon the great majority of these really self-sacrificing\nmen--whose first utterances showed complete ignorance of the theories\nthey attacked--there came quiet and widespread contempt; upon Pastor\nKnak, who stood forth and proclaimed views of the universe which he\nthought scriptural, but which most schoolboys knew to be childish,\ncame a burst of good-natured derision from every quarter of the German\nnation.(287)\n\n\n     (287) See the Berlin newspapers for the summer of 1868, especially\nKladderdatsch.\n\n\nBut in all the greater modern nations warfare of this kind, after the\nfirst quarter of the nineteenth century, became more and more futile.\nWhile conscientious Roman bishops, and no less conscientious Protestant\nclergymen in Europe and America continued to insist that advanced\neducation, not only in literature but in science, should be kept under\ncareful control in their own sectarian universities and colleges,\nwretchedly one-sided in organization and inadequate in equipment; while\nCatholic clerical authorities in Spain were rejecting all professors\nholding the Newtonian theory, and in Austria and Italy all holding\nunsafe views regarding the Immaculate Conception, and while Protestant\nclerical authorities in Great Britain and America were keeping out\nof professorships men holding unsatisfactory views regarding the\nIncarnation, or Infant Baptism, or the Apostolic Succession, or\nOrdination by Elders, or the Perseverance of the Saints; and while both\nCatholic and Protestant ecclesiastics were openly or secretly weeding\nout of university faculties all who showed willingness to consider\nfairly the ideas of Darwin, a movement was quietly in progress destined\nto take instruction, and especially instruction in the physical\nand natural sciences, out of its old subordination to theology and\necclesiasticism.(288)\n\n\n     (288) Whatever may be thought of the system of philosophy advocated by\nPresident McCosh at Princeton, every thinking man must honor him for the\nlarge way in which he, at least, broke away from the traditions of that\ncentre of thought; prevented, so far as he was able, persecution of\nscholars for holding to the Darwinian view; and paved the way for the\nhighest researches in physical science in that university. For a most\neloquent statement of the opposition of modern physical science to\nmediaeval theological views, as shown in the case of Sir Isaac Newton,\nsee Dr. Thomas Chalmers, cited in Gore, Art of Scientific Discovery,\nLondon, 1878, p. 247.\n\n\nThe most striking beginnings of this movement had been seen when, in the\ndarkest period of the French Revolution, there was founded at Paris the\ngreat Conservatory of Arts and Trades, and when, in the early years\nof the nineteenth century, scientific and technical education spread\nquietly upon the Continent. By the middle of the century France and\nGermany were dotted with well-equipped technical and scientific schools,\neach having chemical and physical laboratories.\n\nThe English-speaking lands lagged behind. In England, Oxford and\nCambridge showed few if any signs of this movement, and in the United\nStates, down to 1850, evidences of it were few and feeble. Very\nsignificant is it that, at that period, while Yale College had in\nits faculty Silliman and Olmsted--the professor of chemistry and the\nprofessor of physics most widely known in the United States--it had no\nphysical or chemical laboratory in the modern sense, and confined its\ninstruction in these subjects to examinations upon a text-book and the\npresentation of a few lectures. At the State University of Michigan,\nwhich had even then taken a foremost place in the higher education west\nof the Great Lakes, there was very meagre instruction in chemistry and\nvirtually none in physics. This being the state of things in the middle\nof the century in institutions remarkably free from clerical control,\nit can be imagined what was the position of scientific instruction in\nsmaller colleges and universities where theological considerations were\nentirely dominant.\n\nBut in 1851, with the International Exhibition at London, began in Great\nBritain and America a movement in favour of scientific education; men\nof wealth and public spirit began making contributions to them, and thus\ncame the growth of a new system of instruction in which Chemistry and\nPhysics took just rank.\n\nBy far the most marked feature in this movement was seen in America,\nwhen, in 1857, Justin S. Morrill, a young member of Congress from\nVermont, presented the project of a law endowing from the public lands\na broad national system of colleges in which scientific and technical\nstudies should be placed on an equality with studies in classical\nliterature, one such college to be established in every State of the\nUnion. The bill, though opposed mainly by representatives from the\nSouthern States, where doctrinaire politics and orthodox theology were\nin strong alliance with negro slavery, was passed by both Houses of\nCongress, but vetoed by President Buchanan, in whom the doctrinaire and\northodox spirit was incarnate. But Morrill persisted and again presented\nhis bill, which was again carried in spite of the opposition of the\nSouthern members, and again vetoed in 1859 by President Buchanan. Then\ncame the civil war; but Morrill and his associates did not despair of\nthe republic. In the midst of all the measures for putting vast armies\ninto the field and for saving the Union from foreign interference as\nwell as from domestic anarchy, they again passed the bill, and in 1862,\nin the darkest hour of the struggle for national existence, it became a\nlaw by the signature of President Lincoln.\n\nAnd here it should not be unrecorded, that, while the vast majority of\nthe supporters of the measure were laymen, most efficient service was\nrendered by a clergyman, the Rev. Dr. Amos Brown, born in New Hampshire,\nbut at that time an instructor in a little village of New York. His\nideas were embodied in the bill, and his efforts did much for its\npassage.\n\nThus was established, in every State of the American Union, at least one\ninstitution in which scientific and technical studies were given equal\nrank with classical, and promoted by laboratories for research in\nphysical and natural science. Of these institutions there are now nearly\nfifty: all have proved valuable, and some of them, by the addition of\nsplendid gifts from individuals and from the States in which they are\nsituated, have been developed into great universities.\n\nNor was this all. Many of the older universities and colleges thus\nreceived a powerful stimulus in the new direction. The great physical\nand chemical laboratories founded by gifts from public-spirited\nindividuals, as at Harvard, Yale, and Chicago, or by enlightened State\nlegislators, as in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, California, Kansas,\nand Nebraska, have also become centres from which radiate influences\nfavouring the unfettered search for truth as truth.\n\nThis system has been long enough in operation to enable us to note in\nsome degree its effects on religion, and these are certainly such as\nto relieve those who have feared that religion was necessarily bound up\nwith the older instruction controlled by theology. While in Europe, by a\nnatural reaction, the colleges under strict ecclesiastical control have\nsent forth the most powerful foes the Christian Church has ever known,\nof whom Voltaire and Diderot and Volney and Sainte-Beuve and Renan are\ntypes, no such effects have been noted in these newer institutions.\nWhile the theological way of looking at the universe has steadily\nyielded, there has been no sign of any tendency toward irreligion. On\nthe contrary, it is the testimony of those best acquainted with the\nAmerican colleges and universities during the last forty-five years that\nthere has been in them a great gain, not only as regards morals, but as\nregards religion in its highest and best sense. The reason is not far\nto seek. Under the old American system the whole body of students at\na university were confined to a single course, for which the majority\ncared little and very many cared nothing, and, as a result, widespread\nidleness and dissipation were inevitable. Under the new system,\npresenting various courses, and especially courses in various sciences,\nappealing to different tastes and aims, the great majority of students\nare interested, and consequently indolence and dissipation have steadily\ndiminished. Moreover, in the majority of American institutions of\nlearning down to the middle of the century, the main reliance for the\nreligious culture of students was in the perfunctory presentation of\nsectarian theology, and the occasional stirring up of what were called\n\"revivals,\" which, after a period of unhealthy stimulus, inevitably left\nthe main body of students in a state of religious and moral reaction\nand collapse. This method is now discredited, and in the more important\nAmerican universities it has become impossible. Religious truth, to\nsecure the attention of the modern race of students in the better\nAmerican institutions, is presented, not by \"sensation preachers,\" but\nby thoughtful, sober-minded scholars. Less and less avail sectarian\narguments; more and more impressive becomes the presentation of\nfundamental religious truths. The result is, that while young men care\nless and less for the great mass of petty, cut-and-dried sectarian\nformulas, they approach the deeper questions of religion with increasing\nreverence.\n\nWhile striking differences exist between the European universities and\nthose of the United States, this at least may be said, that on both\nsides of the Atlantic the great majority of the leading institutions\nof learning are under the sway of enlightened public opinion as voiced\nmainly by laymen, and that, this being the case, the physical and\nnatural sciences are henceforth likely to be developed normally,\nand without fear of being sterilized by theology or oppressed by\necclesiasticism.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.  FROM MIRACLES TO MEDICINE.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE EARLY AND SACRED THEORIES OF DISEASE.\n\n\nNothing in the evolution of human thought appears more inevitable than\nthe idea of supernatural intervention in producing and curing disease.\nThe causes of disease are so intricate that they are reached only after\nages of scientific labour. In those periods when man sees everywhere\nmiracle and nowhere law,--when he attributes all things which he can not\nunderstand to a will like his own,--he naturally ascribes his diseases\neither to the wrath of a good being or to the malice of an evil being.\n\nThis idea underlies the connection of the priestly class with the\nhealing art: a connection of which we have survivals among rude tribes\nin all parts of the world, and which is seen in nearly every ancient\ncivilization--especially in the powers over disease claimed in Egypt by\nthe priests of Osiris and Isis, in Assyria by the priests of Gibil, in\nGreece by the priests of Aesculapius, and in Judea by the priests and\nprophets of Jahveh.\n\nIn Egypt there is evidence, reaching back to a very early period, that\nthe sick were often regarded as afflicted or possessed by demons; the\nsame belief comes constantly before us in the great religions of India\nand China; and, as regards Chaldea, the Assyrian tablets recovered in\nrecent years, while revealing the source of so many myths and legends\ntransmitted to the modern world through the book of Genesis, show\nespecially this idea of the healing of diseases by the casting out of\ndevils. A similar theory was elaborated in Persia. Naturally, then, the\nOld Testament, so precious in showing the evolution of religious and\nmoral truth among men, attributes such diseases as the leprosy of Miriam\nand Uzziah, the boils of Job, the dysentery of Jehoram, the withered\nhand of Jeroboam, the fatal illness of Asa, and many other ills, to the\nwrath of God or the malice of Satan; while, in the New Testament, such\nexamples as the woman \"bound by Satan,\" the rebuke of the fever, the\ncasting out of the devil which was dumb, the healing of the person whom\n\"the devil ofttimes casteth into the fire\"--of which case one of\nthe greatest modern physicians remarks that never was there a truer\ndescription of epilepsy--and various other episodes, show this same\ninevitable mode of thought as a refracting medium through which the\nteachings and doings of the Great Physician were revealed to future\ngenerations.\n\nIn Greece, though this idea of an occult evil agency in producing bodily\nills appeared at an early period, there also came the first beginnings,\nso far as we know, of a really scientific theory of medicine. Five\nhundred years before Christ, in the bloom period of thought--the\nperiod of Aeschylus, Phidias, Pericles, Socrates, and Plato--appeared\nHippocrates, one of the greatest names in history. Quietly but\nthoroughly he broke away from the old tradition, developed scientific\nthought, and laid the foundations of medical science upon experience,\nobservation, and reason so deeply and broadly that his teaching remains\nto this hour among the most precious possessions of our race.\n\nHis thought was passed on to the School of Alexandria, and there medical\nscience was developed yet further, especially by such men as Herophilus\nand Erasistratus. Under their lead studies in human anatomy began by\ndissection; the old prejudice which had weighed so long upon science,\npreventing that method of anatomical investigation without which there\ncan be no real results, was cast aside apparently forever.(289)\n\n\n     (289) For extended statements regarding medicine in Egypt, Judea, and\nEastern nations generally, see Sprengel, Histoire de la Medecine, and\nHaeser; and for more succinct accounts, Baas, Geschichte der Medicin,\npp. 15-29; also Isensee; also Fredault, Histoire de la Medecine, chap.\ni. For the effort in Egyptian medicine to deal with demons and witches,\nsee Heinrich Brugsch, Die Aegyptologie, Leipsic, 1891, p. 77; and for\nreferences to the Papyrus Ebers, etc., pp. 155, 407, and following. For\nfear of dissection and prejudices against it in Egypt, like those in\nmediaeval Europe, see Maspero and Sayce, Dawn of Civilization, p. 216.\nFor the derivation of priestly medicine in Egypt, see Baas, pp. 16, 22.\nFor the fame of Egyptian medicine at Rome, see Sharpe, History of Egypt,\nvol. ii, pp. 151, 184. For Assyria, see especially George Smith in\nDelitzsch's German translation, p. 34, and F. Delitzsch's appendix, p.\n27. On the cheapness and commonness of miracles of healing in antiquity,\nsee Sharpe, quoting St. Jerome, vol. ii, pp. 276, 277. As to the\ninfluence of Chaldean ideas of magic and disease, see Lecky, History of\nEuropean Morals, vol. i, p. 404 and note. But, on the other hand, see\nreference in Homer to diseases caused by a \"demon.\" For the evolution of\nmedicine before and after Hippocrates, see Sprengel. For a good summing\nup of the work of Hippocrates, see Baas, p. 201. For the necessary\npassage of medicine in its early stages under priestly control, see\nCabanis, The Revolution of Medical Science, London, 1806, chap. ii. On\nJewish ideas regarding demons, and their relation to sickness, see Toy,\nJudaism and Christianity, Boston, 1891, pp. 168 et seq. For avoidance\nof dissections of human subjects even by Galen and his disciples, see\nMaurice Albert, Les Medecins Grecs a Rome, Paris, 1894, chap. xi. For\nHerophilus, Erasistratus, and the School of Alexandria, see Sprengel,\nvol. i, pp. 433, 434 et seq.\n\n\nBut with the coming in of Christianity a great new chain of events\nwas set in motion which modified this development most profoundly. The\ninfluence of Christianity on the healing art was twofold: there was\nfirst a blessed impulse--the thought, aspiration, example, ideals, and\nspirit of Jesus of Nazareth. This spirit, then poured into the world,\nflowed down through the ages, promoting self-sacrifice for the sick\nand wretched. Through all those succeeding centuries, even through the\nrudest, hospitals and infirmaries sprang up along this blessed stream.\nOf these were the Eastern establishments for the cure of the sick at\nthe earliest Christian periods, the Infirmary of Monte Cassino and the\nHotel-Dieu at Lyons in the sixth century, the Hotel-Dieu at Paris in the\nseventh, and the myriad refuges for the sick and suffering which sprang\nup in every part of Europe during the following centuries. Vitalized by\nthis stream, all medieval growths of mercy bloomed luxuriantly. To\nsay nothing of those at an earlier period, we have in the time of the\nCrusades great charitable organizations like the Order of St. John of\nJerusalem, and thenceforward every means of bringing the spirit of Jesus\nto help afflicted humanity. So, too, through all those ages we have\na succession of men and women devoting themselves to works of mercy,\nculminating during modern times in saints like Vincent de Paul, Francke,\nHoward, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, and Muhlenberg.\n\nBut while this vast influence, poured forth from the heart of the\nFounder of Christianity, streamed through century after century,\ninspiring every development of mercy, there came from those who\norganized the Church which bears his name, and from those who afterward\ndeveloped and directed it, another stream of influence--a theology drawn\npartly from prehistoric conceptions of unseen powers, partly from ideas\ndeveloped in the earliest historic nations, but especially from the\nletter of the Hebrew and Christian sacred books.\n\nThe theology deveLoped out of our sacred literature in relation to the\ncure of disease was mainly twofold: first, there was a new and strong\nevolution of the old idea that physical disease is produced by the\nwrath of God or the malice of Satan, or by a combination of both, which\ntheology was especially called in to explain; secondly, there were\nevolved theories of miraculous methods of cure, based upon modes of\nappeasing the Divine anger, or of thwarting Satanic malice.\n\nAlong both these streams of influence, one arising in the life of Jesus,\nand the other in the reasonings of theologians, legends of miracles grew\nluxuriantly. It would be utterly unphilosophical to attribute these as\na whole to conscious fraud. Whatever part priestcraft may have taken\nafterward in sundry discreditable developments of them, the mass of\nmiraculous legends, Century after century, grew up mainly in good\nfaith, and as naturally as elms along water-courses or flowers upon the\nprairie.\n\n\n\n\nII. GROWTH OF LEGENDS OF HEALING.\n\n--THE LIFE OF XAVIER AS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE.\n\n\nLegends of miracles have thus grown about the lives of all great\nbenefactors of humanity in early ages, and about saints and devotees.\nThroughout human history the lives of such personages, almost without\nexception, have been accompanied or followed by a literature in\nwhich legends of miraculous powers form a very important part--a part\nconstantly increasing until a different mode of looking at nature and\nof weighing testimony causes miracles to disappear. While modern thought\nholds the testimony to the vast mass of such legends in all ages as\nworthless, it is very widely acknowledged that great and gifted beings\nwho endow the earth with higher religious ideas, gaining the deepest\nhold upon the hearts and minds of multitudes, may at times exercise such\ninfluence upon those about them that the sick in mind or body are helped\nor healed.\n\nWe have within the modern period very many examples which enable us to\nstudy the evolution of legendary miracles. Out of these I will select\nbut one, which is chosen because it is the life of one of the most\nnoble and devoted men in the history of humanity, one whose biography\nis before the world with its most minute details--in his own letters,\nin the letters of his associates, in contemporary histories, and in a\nmultitude of biographies: this man is St. Francis Xavier. From these\nsources I draw the facts now to be given, but none of them are of\nProtestant origin; every source from which I shall draw is Catholic and\nRoman, and published under the sanction of the Church.\n\nBorn a Spanish noble, Xavier at an early age cast aside all ordinary\naims, devoted himself to study, was rapidly advanced to a professorship\nat Paris, and in this position was rapidly winning a commanding\ninfluence, when he came under the sway of another Spaniard even greater,\nthough less brilliantly endowed, than himself--Ignatius Loyola, founder\nof the Society of Jesus. The result was that the young professor\nsacrificed the brilliant career on which he had entered at the French\ncapital, went to the far East as a simple missionary, and there devoted\nhis remaining years to redeeming the lowest and most wretched of our\nrace.\n\nAmong the various tribes, first in lower India and afterward in Japan,\nhe wrought untiringly--toiling through village after village, collecting\nthe natives by the sound of a hand-bell, trying to teach them the\nsimplest Christian formulas; and thus he brought myriads of them to a\nnominal Confession of the Christian faith. After twelve years of such\nefforts, seeking new conquests for religion, he sacrificed his life on\nthe desert island of San Chan.\n\nDuring his career as a missionary he wrote great numbers of letters,\nwhich were preserved and have since been published; and these, with the\nletters of his contemporaries, exhibit clearly all the features of his\nlife. His own writings are very minute, and enable us to follow him\nfully. No account of a miracle wrought by him appears either in his own\nletters or in any contemporary document.(290) At the outside, but two\nor three things occurred in his whole life, as exhibited so fully by\nhimself and his contemporaries, for which the most earnest devotee could\nclaim anything like Divine interposition; and these are such as may be\nread in the letters of very many fervent missionaries, Protestant as\nwell as Catholic. For example, in the beginning of his career, during a\njourney in Europe with an ambassador, one of the servants in fording a\nstream got into deep water and was in danger of drowning. Xavier tells\nus that the ambassador prayed very earnestly, and that the man finally\nstruggled out of the stream. But within sixty years after his death, at\nhis canonization, and by various biographers, this had been magnified\ninto a miracle, and appears in the various histories dressed out in\nglowing colours. Xavier tells us that the ambassador prayed for the\nsafety of the young man; but his biographers tell us that it was Xavier\nwho prayed, and finally, by the later writers, Xavier is represented as\nlifting horse and rider out of the stream by a clearly supernatural act.\n\n\n     (290) This statement was denied with much explosive emphasis by a writer\nin the Catholic World for September and October, 1891, but he brought\nno FACT to support this denial. I may perhaps be allowed to remind the\nreverend writer that since the days of Pascal, whose eminence in the\nChurch he will hardly dispute, the bare assertion even of a Jesuit\nfather against established facts needs some support other than mere\nscurrility.\n\n\nStill another claim to miracle is based upon his arriving at Lisbon\nand finding his great colleague, Simon Rodriguez, ill of fever. Xavier\ninforms us in a very simple way that Rodriguez was so overjoyed to see\nhim that the fever did not return. This is entirely similar to the cure\nwhich Martin Luther wrought upon Melanchthon. Melanchthon had broken\ndown and was supposed to be dying, when his joy at the long-delayed\nvisit of Luther brought him to his feet again, after which he lived for\nmany years.\n\nAgain, it is related that Xavier, finding a poor native woman very\nill, baptized her, saying over her the prayers of the Church, and she\nrecovered.\n\nTwo or three occurrences like these form the whole basis for the\nmiraculous account, so far as Xavier's own writings are concerned.\n\nOf miracles in the ordinary sense of the word there is in these letters\nof his no mention. Though he writes of his doings with especial detail,\ntaking evident pains to note everything which he thought a sign of\nDivine encouragement, he says nothing of his performing miracles,\nand evidently knows nothing of them. This is clearly not due to his\nunwillingness to make known any token of Divine favour. As we have seen,\nhe is very prompt to report anything which may be considered an answer\nto prayer or an evidence of the power of religious means to improve the\nbodily or spiritual health of those to whom he was sent.\n\nNor do the letters of his associates show knowledge of any miracles\nwrought by him. His brother missionaries, who were in constant and loyal\nfellowship with him, make no allusions to them in their communications\nwith each other or with their brethren in Europe.\n\nOf this fact we have many striking evidences. Various collections of\nletters from the Jesuit missionaries in India and the East generally,\nduring the years of Xavier's activity, were published, and in not one of\nthese letters written during Xavier's lifetime appears any account of\na miracle wrought by him. As typical of these collections we may take\nperhaps the most noted of all, that which was published about twenty\nyears after Xavier's death by a Jesuit father, Emanuel Acosta.\n\nThe letters given in it were written by Xavier and his associates not\nonly from Goa, which was the focus of all missionary effort and the\ncentre of all knowledge regarding their work in the East, but from\nall other important points in the great field. The first of them were\nwritten during the saint's lifetime, but, though filled with every sort\nof detail regarding missionary life and work, they say nothing regarding\nany miracles by Xavier.\n\nThe same is true of various other similar collections published during\nthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In not one of them does any\nmention of a miracle by Xavier appear in a letter from India or the East\ncontemporary with him.\n\nThis silence regarding his miracles was clearly not due to any \"evil\nheart of unbelief.\" On the contrary, these good missionary fathers were\nprompt to record the slightest occurrence which they thought evidence of\nthe Divine favour: it is indeed touching to see how eagerly they grasp\nat the most trivial things which could be thus construed.\n\nTheir ample faith was fully shown. One of them, in Acosta's collection,\nsends a report that an illuminated cross had been recently seen in the\nheavens; another, that devils had been cast out of the natives by the\nuse of holy water; another, that various cases of disease had been\nhelped and even healed by baptism; and sundry others sent reports that\nthe blind and dumb had been restored, and that even lepers had been\ncleansed by the proper use of the rites of the Church; but to Xavier no\nmiracles are imputed by his associates during his life or during several\nyears after his death.\n\nOn the contrary, we find his own statements as to his personal\nlimitations, and the difficulties arising from them, fully confirmed\nby his brother workers. It is interesting, for example, in view of the\nclaim afterward made that the saint was divinely endowed for his mission\nwith the \"gift of tongues,\" to note in these letters confirmation of\nXavier's own statement utterly disproving the existence of any such\nDivine gift, and detailing the difficulties which he encountered from\nhis want of knowing various languages, and the hard labour which he\nunderwent in learning the elements of the Japanese tongue.\n\nUntil about ten years after Xavier's death, then, as Emanuel Acosta's\npublication shows, the letters of the missionaries continued without any\nindication of miracles performed by the saint. Though, as we shall see\npresently, abundant legends had already begun to grow elsewhere, not\none word regarding these miracles came as yet from the country which,\naccording to later accounts accepted and sanctioned by the Church, was\nat this very period filled with miracles; not the slightest indication\nof them from the men who were supposed to be in the very thick of these\nmiraculous manifestations.\n\nBut this negative evidence is by no means all. There is also positive\nevidence--direct testimony from the Jesuit order itself--that Xavier\nwrought no miracles.\n\nFor not only did neither Xavier nor his co-workers know anything of the\nmighty works afterward attributed to him, but the highest contemporary\nauthority on the whole subject, a man in the closest correspondence with\nthose who knew most about the saint, a member of the Society of Jesus\nin the highest standing and one of its accepted historians, not only\nexpressly tells us that Xavier wrought no miracles, but gives the\nreasons why he wrought none.\n\nThis man was Joseph Acosta, a provincial of the Jesuit order, its\nvisitor in Aragon, superior at Valladolid, and finally rector of the\nUniversity of Salamanca. In 1571, nineteen years after Xavier's\ndeath, Acosta devoted himself to writing a work mainly concerning the\nconversion of the Indies, and in this he refers especially and with the\ngreatest reverence to Xavier, holding him up as an ideal and his work as\nan example.\n\nBut on the same page with this tribute to the great missionary Acosta\ngoes on to discuss the reasons why progress in the world's conversion is\nnot so rapid as in the early apostolic times, and says that an especial\ncause why apostolic preaching could no longer produce apostolic results\n\"lies in the missionaries themselves, because there is now no power of\nworking miracles.\" He then asks, \"Why should our age be so completely\ndestitute of them?\" This question he answers at great length, and one of\nhis main contentions is that in early apostolic times illiterate men had\nto convert the learned of the world, whereas in modern times the case\nis reversed, learned men being sent to convert the illiterate; and hence\nthat \"in the early times miracles were necessary, but in our time they\nare not.\"\n\nThis statement and argument refer, as we have seen, directly to Xavier\nby name, and to the period covered by his activity and that of the other\ngreat missionaries of his time. That the Jesuit order and the Church at\nlarge thought this work of Acosta trustworthy is proved by the fact\nthat it was published at Salamanca a few years after it was written,\nand republished afterward with ecclesiastical sanction in France.(291)\nNothing shows better than the sequel how completely the evolution of\nmiraculous accounts depends upon the intellectual atmosphere of any land\nand time, and how independent it is of fact.\n\n\n     (291)The work of Joseph Acosta is in the Cornell University Library,\nits title being as follows: De Natura Novi Orbis libri duo et De\nPromulgatione Evangelii apud Barbaros, sive De Procuranda Indorum\nSalute, libri sex, autore Jesepho Acosta, presbytero Societis Jesu. I.\nH. S. Salmanticas, apud Guillelmum Foquel, MDLXXXIX. For the passages\ncited directly contradicting the working of miracles by Xavier and his\nassociates, see lib. ii, cap. ix, of which the title runs, Cur\nMiracula in Conversione gentium non fiant nunc, ut olim, a Christi\npraedicatoribus, especially pp. 242-245; also lib. ii, cap. viii, pp.\n237 et seq. For a passage which shows that Xavier was not then at all\ncredited with \"the miraculous gift of tongues,\" see lib. i, cap. vii,\np. 173. Since writing the above, my attention has been called to the\nalleged miraculous preservation of Xavier's body claimed in sundry\nletters contemporary with its disinterment at San Chan and reinterment\nat Goa. There is no reason why this preservation in itself need be\ndoubted, and no reason why it should be counted miraculous. Such\nexceptional preservation of bodies has been common enough in all ages,\nand, alas for the claims of the Church, quite as common of pagans or\nProtestants as of good Catholics. One of the most famous cases is\nthat of the fair Roman maiden, Julia, daughter of Claudius, over whose\nexhumation at Rome, in 1485, such ado was made by the sceptical scholars\nof the Renaissance. Contemporary observers tell us enthusiastically that\nshe was very beautiful, perfectly preserved, \"the bloom of youth still\nupom her cheeks,\" and exhaling a \"sweet odour\"; but this enthusiasm was\nso little to the taste of Pope Innocent VIII that he had her reburied\nsecretly by night. Only the other day, in June of the year 1895, there\nwas unearthed at Stade, in Hanover, the \"perfectly preserved\" body of\na soldier of the eighth century. So, too, I might mention the bodies\npreserved at the church of St. Thomas at Strasburg, beneath the\nCathedral of Bremen, and elsewhere during hundreds of years past; also\nthe cases of \"adiposeration\" in various American cemeteries, which never\ngrow less wonderful by repetition from mouth to mouth and in the public\nprints. But, while such preservation is not incredible or even strange,\nthere is much reason why precisely in the case of a saint like St.\nFrancis Xavier the evidence for it should be received with especial\ncaution. What the touching fidelity of disciples may lead them to\nbelieve and proclaim regarding an adored leader in a time when faith\nis thought more meritorious than careful statement, and miracle more\nprobable than the natural course of things, is seen, for example,\nin similar pious accounts regarding the bodies of many other saints,\nespecially that of St. Carlo Borromeo, so justly venerated by the Church\nfor his beautiful and charitable life. And yet any one looking at the\nrelics of various saints, especially those of St. Carlo, preserved with\nsuch tender care in the crypt of Milan Cathedral, will see that they\nhave shared the common fate, being either mummified or reduced to\nskeletons; and this is true in all cases, as far as my observation has\nextended. What even a great theologian can be induced to believe\nand testify in a somewhat similar matter, is seen in St. Augustine's\ndeclaration that the flesh of the peacock, which in antiquity and in the\nearly Church was considered a bird somewhat supernaturally endowed, is\nincorruptible. The saint declares that he tested it and found it so (see\nthe De Civitate dei, xxi, c. 4, under the passage beginning Quis enim\nDeus). With this we may compare the testimony of the pious author of\nSir John Mandeville's Travels, that iron floats upon the Dead Sea while\nfeathers sink in it, and that he would not have believed this had he not\nseen it. So, too, testimony to the \"sweet odour\" diffused by the exhumed\nremains of the saint seem to indicate feeling rather than fact--those\nhighly wrought feelings of disciples standing by--the same feeling which\nled those who visited St. Simon Stylites on his heap of ordure, and\nother hermits unwashed and living in filth, to dwell upon the delicious\n\"odour of sanctity\" pervading the air. In point, perhaps, is Louis\nVeuillot's idealization of the \"parfum de Rome,\" in face of the fact, to\nwhich the present writer and thousands of others can testify, that\nunder Papal rule Rome was materially one of the most filthy cities in\nChristendom. For the case of Julia, see the contemporary letter printed\nby Janitschek, Gesellschaft der Renaissance in Italien, p. 120, note\n167; also Infessura, Diarium Rom. Urbis, in Muratori, tom. iii, pt. 2,\ncol. 1192, 1193, and elsewhere; also Symonds, Renaissance in Italy: Age\nof Despots, p. 22. For the case at Stade, see press dispatch from Berlin\nin newspapers of June 24, 25, 1895. The copy of Emanuel Acosta I have\nmainly used is that in the Royal Library at Munich, De Japonicus rebus\nepistolarum libri iii, item recogniti; et in Latinum ex Hispanico\nsermone conversi, Dilingae, MDLXXI. I have since obtained and used the\nwork now in the library of Cornell University, being the letters and\ncommentary published by Emanuel Acosta and attached to Maffei's book on\nthe History of the Indies, published at Antwerp in 1685. For the first\nbeginnings of miracles wrought by Xavier, as given in the letters of\nthe missionaries, see that of Almeida, lib. ii, p. 183. Of other\ncollections, or selections from collections, of letters which fail to\ngive any indication of miracles wrought by Xavier during his life,\nsee Wytfliet and Magin, Histoire Universelle des Indes Occidentales et\nOrientales, et de la Conversion des Indiens, Douay, 1611. Though several\nletters of Xavier and his fellow-missionaries are given, dated at the\nvery period of his alleged miracles, not a trace of miracles appears in\nthese. Also Epistolae Japonicae de multorum in variis Insulis Gentilium\nad Christi fidem Conversione, Lovanii, 1570. These letters were written\nby Xavier and his companions from the East Indies and Japan, and cover\nthe years from 1549 to 1564. Though these refer frequently to Xavier,\nthere is no mention of a miracle wrought by him in any of them written\nduring his lifetime.\n\n\nFor, shortly after Xavier's heroic and beautiful death in 1552, stories\nof miracles wrought by him began to appear. At first they were few and\nfeeble; and two years later Melchior Nunez, Provincial of the Jesuits\nin the Portuguese dominions, with all the means at his command, and a\ncorrespondence extending throughout Eastern Asia, had been able to hear\nof but three. These were entirely from hearsay. First, John Deyro said\nhe knew that Xavier had the gift of prophecy; but, unfortunately,\nXavier himself had reprimanded and cast off Deyro for untruthfulness and\ncheatery. Secondly, it was reported vaguely that at Cape Comorin many\npersons affirmed that Xavier had raised a man from the dead. Thirdly,\nFather Pablo de Santa Fe had heard that in Japan Xavier had restored\nsight to a blind man. This seems a feeble beginning, but little by\nlittle the stories grew, and in 1555 De Quadros, Provincial of the\nJesuits in Ethiopia, had heard of nine miracles, and asserted that\nXavier had healed the sick and cast out devils. The next year, being\nfour years after Xavier's death, King John III of Portugal, a very\ndevout man, directed his viceroy Barreto to draw up and transmit to him\nan authentic account of Xavier's miracles, urging him especially to do\nthe work \"with zeal and speedily.\" We can well imagine what treasures of\ngrace an obsequious viceroy, only too anxious to please a devout king,\ncould bring together by means of the hearsay of ignorant, compliant\nnatives through all the little towns of Portuguese India.\n\nBut the letters of the missionaries who had been co-workers or immediate\nsuccessors of Xavier in his Eastern field were still silent as regards\nany miracles by him, and they remained silent for nearly ten years. In\nthe collection of letters published by Emanuel Acosta and others no hint\nat any miracles by him is given, until at last, in 1562, fully ten years\nafter Xavier's death, the first faint beginnings of these legends appear\nin them.\n\nAt that time the Jesuit Almeida, writing at great length to the\nbrethren, stated that he had found a pious woman who believed that a\nbook left behind by Xavier had healed sick folk when it was laid upon\nthem, and that he had met an old man who preserved a whip left by the\nsaint which, when properly applied to the sick, had been found good both\nfor their bodies and their souls. From these and other small beginnings\ngrew, always luxuriant and sometimes beautiful, the vast mass of legends\nwhich we shall see hereafter.\n\nThis growth was affectionately garnered by the more zealous and less\ncritical brethren in Europe until it had become enormous; but it appears\nto have been thought of little value by those best able to judge.\n\nFor when, in 1562, Julius Gabriel Eugubinus delivered a solemn oration\non the condition and glory of the Church, before the papal legates and\nother fathers assembled at the Council of Trent, while he alluded to\na multitude of things showing the Divine favour, there was not the\nremotest allusion to the vast multitude of miracles which, according to\nthe legends, had been so profusely lavished on the faithful during many\nyears, and which, if they had actually occurred, formed an argument of\nprodigious value in behalf of the special claims of the Church.\n\nThe same complete absence of knowledge of any such favours vouchsafed\nto the Church, or at least of any belief in them, appears in that great\nCouncil of Trent among the fathers themselves. Certainly there, if\nanywhere, one might on the Roman theory expect Divine illumination in a\nmatter of this kind. The presence of the Holy Spirit in the midst of it\nwas especially claimed, and yet its members, with all their spiritual\nas well as material advantages for knowing what had been going on in the\nChurch during the previous thirty years, and with Xavier's own friend\nand colleague, Laynez, present to inform them, show not the slightest\nsign of any suspicion of Xavier's miracles. We have the letters of\nJulius Gabriel to the foremost of these fathers assembled at Trent, from\n1557 onward for a considerable time, and we have also a multitude of\nletters written from the Council by bishops, cardinals, and even by the\nPope himself, discussing all sorts of Church affairs, and in not one\nof these is there evidence of the remotest suspicion that any of these\nreports, which they must have heard, regarding Xavier's miracles, were\nworthy of mention.\n\nHere, too, comes additional supplementary testimony of much\nsignificance. With these orations and letters, Eugubinus gives a Latin\ntranslation of a letter, \"on religious affairs in the Indies,\" written\nby a Jesuit father twenty years after Xavier's death. Though the letter\ncame from a field very distant from that in which Xavier laboured, it\nwas sure, among the general tokens of Divine favour to the Church and\nto the order, on which it dwelt, to have alluded to miracles wrought by\nXavier had there been the slightest ground for believing in them; but no\nsuch allusion appears.(292)\n\n\n     (292) For the work referred to, see Julii Gabrielii Eugubini orationum\net epistolarum, etc., libri duo (et) Epitola de rebus Indicis a quodam\nSocietatis Jesu presbytero, etc., Venetiis, 1569. The Epistola begins at\nfol. 44.\n\n\nSo, too, when in 1588, thirty-six years after Xavier's death, the Jesuit\nfather Maffei, who had been especially conversant with Xavier's career\nin the East, published his History of India, though he gave a biography\nof Xavier which shows fervent admiration for his subject, he dwelt very\nlightly on the alleged miracles. But the evolution of miraculous legends\nstill went on. Six years later, in 1594, Father Tursellinus published\nhis Life of Xavier, and in this appears to have made the first large\nuse of the information collected by the Portuguese viceroy and the\nmore zealous brethren. This work shows a vast increase in the number\nof miracles over those given by all sources together up to that time.\nXavier is represented as not only curing the sick, but casting out\ndevils, stilling the tempest, raising the dead, and performing miracles\nof every sort.\n\nIn 1622 came the canonization proceedings at Rome. Among the speeches\nmade in the presence of Pope Gregory XV, supporting the claims of Xavier\nto saintship, the most important was by Cardinal Monte. In this the\norator selects out ten great miracles from those performed by Xavier\nduring his lifetime and describes them minutely. He insists that on a\ncertain occasion Xavier, by the sign of the cross, made sea-water fresh,\nso that his fellow-passengers and the crew could drink it; that he\nhealed the sick and raised the dead in various places; brought back a\nlost boat to his ship; was on one occasion lifted from the earth\nbodily and transfigured before the bystanders; and that, to punish a\nblaspheming town, he caused an earthquake and buried the offenders in\ncinders from a volcano: this was afterward still more highly developed,\nand the saint was represented in engravings as calling down fire from\nheaven and thus destroying the town.\n\nThe most curious miracle of all is the eighth on the cardinal's list.\nRegarding this he states that, Xavier having during one of his voyages\nlost overboard a crucifix, it was restored to him after he had reached\nthe shore by a crab.\n\nThe cardinal also dwelt on miracles performed by Xavier's relics after\nhis death, the most original being that sundry lamps placed before the\nimage of the saint and filled with holy water burned as if filled with\noil.\n\nThis latter account appears to have deeply impressed the Pope, for in\nthe Bull of Canonization issued by virtue of his power of teaching\nthe universal Church infallibly in all matters pertaining to faith and\nmorals, His Holiness dwells especially upon the miracle of the lamp\nfilled with holy water and burning before Xavier's image.\n\nXavier having been made a saint, many other Lives of him appeared, and,\nas a rule, each surpassed its predecessor in the multitude of miracles.\nIn 1622 appeared that compiled and published under the sanction of\nFather Vitelleschi, and in it not only are new miracles increased, but\nsome old ones are greatly improved. One example will suffice to show the\nprocess. In his edition of 1596, Tursellinus had told how, Xavier one\nday needing money, and having asked Vellio, one of his friends, to\nlet him have some, Vellio gave him the key of a safe containing thirty\nthousand gold pieces. Xavier took three hundred and returned the key\nto Vellio; whereupon Vellio, finding only three hundred pieces gone,\nreproached Xavier for not taking more, saying that he had expected to\ngive him half of all that the strong box contained. Xavier, touched by\nthis generosity, told Vellio that the time of his death should be made\nknown to him, that he might have opportunity to repent of his sins and\nprepare for eternity. But twenty-six years later the Life of Xavier\npublished under the sanction of Vitelleschi, giving the story, says that\nVellio on opening the safe found that ALL HIS MONEY remained as he had\nleft it, and that NONE AT ALL had disappeared; in fact, that there had\nbeen a miraculous restitution. On his blaming Xavier for not taking the\nmoney, Xavier declares to Vellio that not only shall he be apprised of\nthe moment of his death, but that the box shall always be full of money.\nStill later biographers improved the account further, declaring that\nXavier promised Vellio that the strong box should always contain money\nsufficient for all his needs. In that warm and uncritical atmosphere\nthis and other legends grew rapidly, obedient to much the same laws\nwhich govern the evolution of fairy tales.(293)\n\n\n     (293) The writer in the Catholic World, already mentioned, rather\nrashly asserts that there is no such Life of Xavier as that I have\nabove quoted. The reverend Jesuit father has evidently glanced over the\nbibliographies of Carayon and De Backer, and, not finding it there\nunder the name of Vitelleschi, has spared himself further trouble. It\nis sufficient to say that the book may be seen by him in the library of\nCornell University. Its full title is as follows: Compendio della Vita\ndel s. p. Francesco Xaviero dell Campagnia di Giesu, Canonizato con\ns. Ignatio Fondatore dell' istessa Religione dalla Santita di N. S.\nGregorio XV. Composto, e dato in luce per ordine del Reverendiss. P\nMutio Vitelleschi Preposito Generale della Comp. di Giesu. In Venetia,\nMDCXXII, Appresso Antonio Pinelli. Con Licenza de' Superiori. My critic\nhazards a guess that the book may be a later edition of Torsellino\n(Tursellinus), but here again he is wrong. It is entirely a different\nbook, giving in its preface a list of sources comprising eleven\nauthorities besides Torsellino.\n\n\nIn 1682, one hundred and thirty years after Xavier's death, appeared his\nbiography by Father Bouhours; and this became a classic. In it the old\nmiracles of all kinds were enormously multiplied, and many new ones\ngiven. Miracles few and small in Tursellinus became many and great in\nBouhours. In Tursellinus, Xavier during his life saves one person from\ndrowning, in Bouhours he saves during his life three; in Tursellinus,\nXavier during his life raises four persons from the dead, in Bouhours\nfourteen; in Tursellinus there is one miraculous supply of water, in\nBouhours three; in Tursellinus there is no miraculous draught of fishes,\nin Bouhours there is one; in Tursellinus, Xavier is transfigured twice,\nin Bouhours five times: and so through a long series of miracles which,\nin the earlier lives appearing either not at all or in very moderate\nform, are greatly increased and enlarged by Tursellinus, and finally\nenormously amplified and multiplied by Father Bouhours.\n\nAnd here it must be borne in mind that Bouhours, writing ninety years\nafter Tursellinus, could not have had access to any new sources. Xavier\nhad been dead one hundred and thirty years, and of course all the\nnatives upon whom he had wrought his miracles, and their children and\ngrandchildren, were gone. It can not then be claimed that Bouhours had\nthe advantage of any new witnesses, nor could he have had anything\nnew in the way of contemporary writings; for, as we have seen, the\nmissionaries of Xavier's time wrote nothing regarding his miracles, and\ncertainly the ignorant natives of India and Japan did not commit any\naccount of his miracles to writing. Nevertheless, the miracles of\nhealing given in Bouhours were more numerous and brilliant than ever.\nBut there was far more than this. Although during the lifetime of Xavier\nthere is neither in his own writings nor in any contemporary account any\nassertion of a resurrection from the dead wrought by him, we find that\nshortly after his death stories of such resurrections began to appear.\nA simple statement of the growth of these may throw some light on the\nevolution of miraculous accounts generally. At first it was affirmed\nthat some people at Cape Comorin said that he had raised one person;\nthen it was said that there were two persons; then in various\nauthors--Emanuel Acosta, in his commentaries written as an afterthought\nnearly twenty years after Xavier's death, De Quadros, and others--the\nstory wavers between one and two cases; finally, in the time of\nTursellinus, four cases had been developed. In 1622, at the canonization\nproceedings, three were mentioned; but by the time of Father Bouhours\nthere were fourteen--all raised from the dead by Xavier himself during\nhis lifetime--and the name, place, and circumstances are given with much\ndetail in each case.(294)\n\n\n     (294) The writer in the Catholic World, already referred to, has based\nan attack here upon a misconception--I will not call it a deliberate\nmisrepresentation--of his own by stating that these resurrections\noccurred after Xavier's death, and were due to his intercession or the\nuse of his relics. The statement of the Jesuit father is utterly without\nfoundation, as a simple reference to Bouhours will show. I take the\nliberty of commending to his attention The Life of St. Francis Xavier,\nby Father Dominic Bouhours, translated by James Dryden, Dublin, 1838.\nFor examples of raising the dead by the saint DURING HIS LIFETIME, see\npp. 69, 82, 93, 111, 218, 307, 316, 321--fourteen cases in all.\n\n\nIt seems to have been felt as somewhat strange at first that Xavier\nhad never alluded to any of these wonderful miracles; but ere long a\nsubsidiary legend was developed, to the effect that one of the brethren\nasked him one day if he had raised the dead, whereat he blushed deeply\nand cried out against the idea, saying: \"And so I am said to have raised\nthe dead! What a misleading man I am! Some men brought a youth to me\njust as if he were dead, who, when I commanded him to arise in the name\nof Christ, straightway arose.\"\n\nNoteworthy is the evolution of other miracles. Tursellinus, writing in\n1594, tells us that on the voyage from Goa to Malacca, Xavier having\nleft the ship and gone upon an island, was afterward found by the\npersons sent in search of him so deeply absorbed in prayer as to be\nunmindful of all things about him. But in the next century Father\nBouhours develops the story as follows: \"The servants found the man of\nGod raised from the ground into the air, his eyes fixed upon heaven, and\nrays of light about his countenance.\"\n\nInstructive, also, is a comparison between the successive accounts of\nhis noted miracle among the Badages at Travancore, in 1544 Xavier in\nhis letters makes no reference to anything extraordinary; and Emanuel\nAcosta, in 1571, declares simply that \"Xavier threw himself into the\nmidst of the Christians, that reverencing him they might spare the\nrest.\" The inevitable evolution of the miraculous goes on; and twenty\nyears later Tursellinus tells us that, at the onslaught of the Badages,\n\"they could not endure the majesty of his countenance and the splendour\nand rays which issued from his eyes, and out of reverence for him they\nspared the others.\" The process of incubation still goes on during\nninety years more, and then comes Father Bouhours's account. Having\ngiven Xavier's prayer on the battlefield, Bouhours goes on to say that\nthe saint, crucifix in hand, rushed at the head of the people toward the\nplain where the enemy was marching, and \"said to them in a threatening\nvoice, 'I forbid you in the name of the living God to advance farther,\nand on His part command you to return in the way you came.' These few\nwords cast a terror into the minds of those soldiers who were at the\nhead of the army; they remained confounded and without motion. They who\nmarched afterward, seeing that the foremost did not advance, asked the\nreason of it. The answer was returned from the front ranks that they had\nbefore their eyes an unknown person habited in black, of more than human\nstature, of terrible aspect, and darting fire from his eyes.... They were\nseized with amazement at the sight, and all of them fled in precipitate\nconfusion.\"\n\nCurious, too, is the after-growth of the miracle of the crab restoring\nthe crucifix. In its first form Xavier lost the crucifix in the sea,\nand the earlier biographers dwell on the sorrow which he showed in\nconsequence; but the later historians declare that the saint threw the\ncrucifix into the sea in order to still a tempest, and that, after his\nsafe getting to land, a crab brought it to him on the shore. In this\nform we find it among illustrations of books of devotion in the next\ncentury.\n\nBut perhaps the best illustration of this evolution of Xavier's miracles\nis to be found in the growth of another legend; and it is especially\ninstructive because it grew luxuriantly despite the fact that it was\nutterly contradicted in all parts of Xavier's writings as well as in the\nletters of his associates and in the work of the Jesuit father, Joseph\nAcosta.\n\nThroughout his letters, from first to last, Xavier constantly dwells\nupon his difficulties with the various languages of the different tribes\namong whom he went. He tells us how he surmounted these difficulties:\nsometimes by learning just enough of a language to translate into it\nsome of the main Church formulas; sometimes by getting the help of\nothers to patch together some pious teachings to be learned by rote;\nsometimes by employing interpreters; and sometimes by a mixture of\nvarious dialects, and even by signs. On one occasion he tells us that a\nvery serious difficulty arose, and that his voyage to China was delayed\nbecause, among other things, the interpreter he had engaged had failed\nto meet him.\n\nIn various Lives which appeared between the time of his death and\nhis canonization this difficulty is much dwelt upon; but during the\ncanonization proceedings at Rome, in the speeches then made, and finally\nin the papal bull, great stress was laid upon the fact that Xavier\npossessed THE GIFT OF TONGUES. It was declared that he spoke to the\nvarious tribes with ease in their own languages. This legend of Xavier's\nmiraculous gift of tongues was especially mentioned in the papal bull,\nand was solemnly given forth by the pontiff as an infallible statement\nto be believed by the universal Church. Gregory XV having been prevented\nby death from issuing the Bull of Canonization, it was finally issued by\nUrban VIII; and there is much food for reflection in the fact that the\nsame Pope who punished Galileo, and was determined that the Inquisition\nshould not allow the world to believe that the earth revolves about\nthe sun, thus solemnly ordered the world, under pain of damnation, to\nbelieve in Xavier's miracles, including his \"gift of tongues,\" and the\nreturn of the crucifix by the pious crab. But the legend was developed\nstill further: Father Bouhours tells us, \"The holy man spoke very well\nthe language of those barbarians without having learned it, and had no\nneed of an interpreter when he instructed.\" And, finally, in our\nown time, the Rev. Father Coleridge, speaking of the saint among the\nnatives, says, \"He could speak the language excellently, though he had\nnever learned it.\"\n\nIn the early biography, Tursellinus writes. \"Nothing was a greater\nimpediment to him than his ignorance of the Japanese tongues; for, ever\nand anon, when some uncouth expression offended their fastidious and\ndelicate ears, the awkward speech of Francis was a cause of laughter.\"\nBut Father Bouhours, a century later, writing of Xavier at the same\nperiod, says, \"He preached in the afternoon to the Japanese in their\nlanguage, but so naturally and with so much ease that he could not be\ntaken for a foreigner.\"\n\nAnd finally, in 1872, Father Coleridge, of the Society of Jesus,\nspeaking of Xavier at this time, says, \"He spoke freely, flowingly,\nelegantly, as if he had lived in Japan all his life.\"\n\nNor was even this sufficient: to make the legend complete, it was\nfinally declared that, when Xavier addressed the natives of various\ntribes, each heard the sermon in his own language in which he was born.\n\nAll this, as we have seen, directly contradicts not only the plain\nstatements of Xavier himself, and various incidental testimonies in the\nletters of his associates, but the explicit declaration of Father Joseph\nAcosta. The latter historian dwells especially on the labour which\nXavier was obliged to bestow on the study of the Japanese and other\nlanguages, and says, \"Even if he had been endowed with the apostolic\ngift of tongues, he could not have spread more widely the glory of\nChrist.\"(295)\n\n\n     (295) For the evolution of the miracles of Xavier, see his Letters, with\nLife, published by Leon Pages, Paris, 1855; also Maffei, Historiarum\nIndicarum libri xvi, Venice, 1589; also the lives by Tursellinus,\nvarious editions, beginning with that of 1594; Vitelleschi, 1622;\nBouhours, 1683; Massei, second edition, 1682 (Rome), and others;\nBartoli, Baltimore, 1868; Coleridge, 1872. In addition to these, I have\ncompared, for a more extended discussion of this subject hereafter,\na very great number of editions of these and other biographies of\nthe saint, with speeches at the canonization, the bull of Gregory XV,\nvarious books of devotion, and a multitude of special writings, some\nof them in manuscript, upon the glories of the saint, including a large\nmass of material at the Royal Library in Munich and in the British\nMuseum. I have relied entirely upon Catholic authors, and have\nnot thought it worth while to consult any Protestant author. The\nillustration of the miracle of the crucifix and the crab in its final\nform is given in La Devotion de Dix Vendredis a l'Honneur de St.\nFrancois Xavier, Bruxelles, 1699, Fig. 24: the pious crab is represented\nas presenting the crucifix by which a journey of forty leagues he has\nbrought from the depths of the ocean to Xavier, who walks upon the\nshore. The book is in the Cornell University Library. For the letter\nof King John to Barreto, see Leon Pages's Lettres de Francois Xavier,\nParis, 1855, vol. ii, p. 465. For the miracle among the Badages, compare\nTursellinus, lib. ii, c. x, p. 16, with Bouhours, Dryden's translation,\npp. 146, 147. For the miracle of the gift of tongues, in its higher\ndevelopment, see Bouhours, p. 235, and Coleridge, vo. i, pp. 151, 154,\nand vol. ii, p. 551\n\n\nIt is hardly necessary to attribute to the orators and biographers\ngenerally a conscious attempt to deceive. The simple fact is, that as\na rule they thought, spoke, and wrote in obedience to the natural\nlaws which govern the luxuriant growth of myth and legend in the warm\natmosphere of love and devotion which constantly arises about great\nreligious leaders in times when men have little or no knowledge of\nnatural law, when there is little care for scientific evidence, and when\nhe who believes most is thought most meritorious.(296)\n\n\n     (296) Instances can be given of the same evolution of miraculous legend\nin our own time. To say nothing of the sacred fountain at La Salette,\nwhich preserves its healing powers in spite of the fact that the miracle\nthat gave rise to them has twice been pronounced fraudulent by the\nFrench courts, and to pass without notice a multitude of others, not\nonly in Catholic but in Protestant countries, the present writer may\nallude to one which in the year 1893 came under his own observation.\nOn arriving in St. Petersburg to begin an official residence there,\nhis attention was arrested by various portraits of a priest of the\nRusso-Greek Church; they were displayed in shop windows and held an\nhonoured place in many private dwellings. These portraits ranged from\nlifelike photographs, which showed a plain, shrewd, kindly face, to\nthose which were idealized until they bore a strong resemblance to the\nconventional representations of Jesus of Nazareth. On making inquiries,\nthe writer found that these portraits represented Father Ivan, of\nCronstadt, a priest noted for his good works, and very widely believed\nto be endowed with the power of working miracles.\n\nOne day, in one of the most brilliant reception rooms of the northern\ncapital, the subject of Father Ivan's miracles having been introduced, a\ngentleman in very high social position and entirely trustworthy spoke as\nfollows: \"There is something very surprising about these miracles. I am\nslow to believe in them, but I know the following to be a fact: The\nlate Metropolitan Archbishop of St. Petersburg loved quiet, and was\nvery adverse to anything which could possibly cause scandal. Hearing\nof Father Ivan's miracles, he summoned him to his presence and solemnly\ncommanded him to abstain from all of the things which had given rise to\nhis reported miracles, and with this injunction, dismissed him. Hardly\nhad the priest left the room when the archbishop was struck with\nblindness and remained in this condition until the priest returned and\nremoved his blindness by intercessory prayers.\" When the present writer\nasked the person giving this account if he directly knew these facts,\nhe replied that he was, of course, not present when the miracle was\nwrought, but that he had the facts immediately from persons who knew all\nthe parties concerned and were cognizant directly of the circumstances\nof the case.\n\nSome time afterward, the present writer being at an afternoon reception\nat one of the greater embassies, the same subject was touched upon, when\nan eminent general spoke as follows: \"I am not inclined to believe in\nmiracles, in fact am rather sceptical, but the proofs of those wrought\nby Father Ivan are overwhelming.\" He then went on to say that the late\nMetropolitan Archbishop was a man who loved quiet and disliked scandal;\nand that on this account he had summoned Father Ivan to his palace and\nordered him to put an end to the conduct which had caused the reports\nconcerning his miraculous powers, and then, with a wave of the arm,\nhad dismissed him. The priest left the room, and from that moment the\narchbishop's arm was paralyzed, and it remained so until the penitent\nprelate summoned the priest again, by whose prayers the arm was restored\nto its former usefulness. There was present at the time another person\nbesides the writer who had heard the previous statement as to the\nblindness of the archbishop, and on their both questioning the general\nif he were sure that the archbishop's arm was paralyzed, as stated, he\ndeclared that he could not doubt it, as he had it directly from persons\nentirely trustworthy, who were cognizant of all the facts.\n\nSome time later, the present writer, having an interview with the most\neminent lay authority in the Greek Church, a functionary whose duties\nhad brought him into almost daily contact with the late archbishop,\nasked him which of these stories was correct. This gentleman answered\nimmediately: \"Neither; I saw the archbishop constantly, and no such\nevent occurred; he was never paralyzed and never blind.\"\n\nThe same gentleman went on to say that, in his belief, Father Ivan had\nshown remarkable powers in healing the sick, and the greatest charity in\nrelieving the distressed. It was made clearly evident that Father Ivan\nis a saintlike man, devoted to the needy and distressed and exercising\nan enormous influence over them--an influence so great that crowds\nawait him whenever he visits the capital. In the atmosphere of Russian\ndevotion myths and legends grow luxuriantly about him, nor is belief in\nhim confined to the peasant class. In the autumn of 1894 he was summoned\nto the bedside of the Emperor Alexander III. Unfortunately for the peace\nof Europe, his intercession at that time proved unavailing.\n\n\nThese examples will serve to illustrate the process which in thousands\nof cases has gone on from the earliest days of the Church until a very\nrecent period. Everywhere miraculous cures became the rule rather than\nthe exception throughout Christendom.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE MEDIAEVAL MIRACLES OF HEALING CHECK MEDICAL SCIENCE.\n\n\nSo it was that, throughout antiquity, during the early history of the\nChurch, throughout the Middle Ages, and indeed down to a comparatively\nrecent period, testimony to miraculous interpositions which would now\nbe laughed at by a schoolboy was accepted by the leaders of thought. St.\nAugustine was certainly one of the strongest minds in the early Church,\nand yet we find him mentioning, with much seriousness, a story that\nsundry innkeepers of his time put a drug into cheese which metamorphosed\ntravellers into domestic animals, and asserting that the peacock is so\nfavoured by the Almighty that its flesh will not decay, and that he has\ntested it and knows this to be a fact. With such a disposition regarding\nthe wildest stories, it is not surprising that the assertion of St.\nGregory of Nazianzen, during the second century, as to the cures wrought\nby the martyrs Cosmo and Damian, was echoed from all parts of Europe\nuntil every hamlet had its miracle-working saint or relic.\n\nThe literature of these miracles is simply endless. To take our own\nancestors alone, no one can read the Ecclesiastical History of Bede, or\nAbbot Samson's Miracles of St. Edmund, or the accounts given by Eadmer\nand Osbern of the miracles of St. Dunstan, or the long lists of those\nwrought by Thomas a Becket, or by any other in the army of English\nsaints, without seeing the perfect naturalness of this growth. This\nevolution of miracle in all parts of Europe came out of a vast preceding\nseries of beliefs, extending not merely through the early Church but far\nback into paganism. Just as formerly patients were cured in the temples\nof Aesculapius, so they were cured in the Middle Ages, and so they are\ncured now at the shrines of saints. Just as the ancient miracles were\nsolemnly attested by votive tablets, giving names, dates, and details,\nand these tablets hung before the images of the gods, so the medieval\nmiracles were attested by similar tablets hung before the images of the\nsaints; and so they are attested to-day by similar tablets hung before\nthe images of Our Lady of La Salette or of Lourdes. Just as faith in\nsuch miracles persisted, in spite of the small percentage of cures at\nthose ancient places of healing, so faith persists to-day, despite the\nfact that in at least ninety per cent of the cases at Lourdes prayers\nprove unavailing. As a rule, the miracles of the sacred books were\ntaken as models, and each of those given by the sacred chroniclers was\nrepeated during the early ages of the Church and through the medieval\nperiod with endless variations of circumstance, but still with curious\nfidelity to the original type.\n\nIt should be especially kept in mind that, while the vast majority\nof these were doubtless due to the myth-making faculty and to that\ndevelopment of legends which always goes on in ages ignorant of the\nrelation between physical causes and effects, some of the miracles of\nhealing had undoubtedly some basis in fact. We in modern times have\nseen too many cures performed through influences exercised upon the\nimagination, such as those of the Jansenists at the Cemetery of St.\nMedard, of the Ultramontanes at La Salette and Lourdes, of the Russian\nFather Ivan at St. Petersburg, and of various Protestant sects at Old\nOrchard and elsewhere, as well as at sundry camp meetings, to doubt that\nsome cures, more or less permanent, were wrought by sainted personages\nin the early Church and throughout the Middle Ages.(297)\n\n\n     (297) For the story of travellers converted into domestic animals, see\nSt. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, liber xviii, chaps. xvii, xviii, in Migne,\ntom. xli, p.574. For Gregory of Nazianen and the similarity of these\nChristian cures in general character to those wrought in the temples\nof Aesculapius, see Sprengel, vol. ii, pp. 145, 146. For the miracles\nwrought at the shrine of St. Edmund, see Samsonis Abbatis Opus de\nMiraculis Sancti Aedmundi, in the Master of the Rolls' series, passim,\nbut especially chaps. xiv and xix for miracles of healing wrought on\nthose who drank out of the saint's cup. For the mighty works of St.\nDunstan, see the Mirac. Sancti Dunstani, auctore Eadmero and auctore\nOsberno, in the Master of the Rolls' series. As to Becket, see the\nMaterials for the History of Thomas Becket, in the same series, and\nespecially the lists of miracles--the mere index of them in the first\nvolume requires thirteen octavo pages. For St. Martin of Tours, see the\nGuizot collection of French Chronicles. For miracle and shrine cures\nchronicled by Bede, see his Ecclesiastical History, passim, but\nespecially from page 110 to page 267. For similarity between the ancient\ncustom of allowing invalids to sleep in the temples of Serapis and the\nmediaeval custom of having them sleep in the church of St. Anthony of\nPadua and other churches, see Meyer, Aberglaube des Mittelalters, Basel,\n1884, chap. iv. For the effect of \"the vivid belief in supernatural\naction which attaches itself to the tombs of the saints,\" etc., as \"a\npsychic agent of great value,\" see Littre, Medecine et Medecins, p. 131.\nFor the Jansenist miracles at Paris, see La Verite des Miracles operes\npar l'Intercession de M. de Paris, par Montgeron, Utrecht, 1737, and\nespecially the cases of Mary Anne Couronneau, Philippe Sargent,\nand Gautier de Pezenas. For some very thoughtful remarks as to the\nworthlessness of the testimony to miracles presented during the\ncanonization proceedings at Rome, see Maury, Legendes Pieuses, pp. 4-7.\n\n\nThere are undoubtedly serious lesions which yield to profound emotion\nand vigorous exertion born of persuasion, confidence, or excitement. The\nwonderful power of the mind over the body is known to every observant\nstudent. Mr. Herbert Spencer dwells upon the fact that intense feeling\nor passion may bring out great muscular force. Dr. Berdoe reminds us\nthat \"a gouty man who has long hobbled about on his crutch, finds his\nlegs and power to run with them if pursued by a wild bull\"; and that\n\"the feeblest invalid, under the influence of delirium or other\nstrong excitement, will astonish her nurse by the sudden accession of\nstrength.\"(298)\n\n\n     (298) For the citation in the text, as well as for a brief but\nremarkably valuable discussion of the power of the mind over the body\nin disease, see Dr. Berdoe's Medical View of the Miracles at Lourdes, in\nThe Nineteenth Century for October, 1895.\n\n\nBut miraculous cures were not ascribed to persons merely. Another\ngrowth, developed by the early Church mainly from germs in our sacred\nbooks, took shape in miracles wrought by streams, by pools of water, and\nespecially by relics. Here, too, the old types persisted, and just as\nwe find holy and healing wells, pools, and streams in all other ancient\nreligions, so we find in the evolution of our own such examples as\nNaaman the Syrian cured of leprosy by bathing in the river Jordan, the\nblind man restored to sight by washing in the pool of Siloam, and the\nhealing of those who touched the bones of Elisha, the shadow of St.\nPeter, or the handkerchief of St. Paul.\n\nSt. Cyril, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and other great fathers of the\nearly Church, sanctioned the belief that similar efficacy was to be\nfound in the relics of the saints of their time; hence, St. Ambrose\ndeclared that \"the precepts of medicine are contrary to celestial\nscience, watching, and prayer,\" and we find this statement reiterated\nfrom time to time throughout the Middle Ages. From this idea was evolved\nthat fetichism which we shall see for ages standing in the way of\nmedical science.\n\nTheology, developed in accordance with this idea, threw about all cures,\neven those which resulted from scientific effort, an atmosphere of\nsupernaturalism. The vividness with which the accounts of miracles in\nthe sacred books were realized in the early Church continued the idea of\nmiraculous intervention throughout the Middle Ages. The testimony of\nthe great fathers of the Church to the continuance of miracles is\noverwhelming; but everything shows that they so fully expected miracles\non the slightest occasion as to require nothing which in these days\nwould be regarded as adequate evidence.\n\nIn this atmosphere of theologic thought medical science was at once\nchecked. The School of Alexandria, under the influence first of Jews and\nlater of Christians, both permeated with Oriental ideas, and taking into\ntheir theory of medicine demons and miracles, soon enveloped everything\nin mysticism. In the Byzantine Empire of the East the same cause\nproduced the same effect; the evolution of ascertained truth in\nmedicine, begun by Hippocrates and continued by Herophilus, seemed lost\nforever. Medical science, trying to advance, was like a ship becalmed\nin the Sargasso Sea: both the atmosphere about it and the medium through\nwhich it must move resisted all progress. Instead of reliance upon\nobservation, experience, experiment, and thought, attention was turned\ntoward supernatural agencies.(299)\n\n\n     (299) For the mysticism which gradually enveloped the School of\nAlexandria, see Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire, De l'Ecole d'Alexandrie,\nParis, 1845, vol. vi, p. 161. For the effect of the new doctrines on the\nEmpire of the East, see Sprengel, vol. ii, p. 240. As to the more common\nmiracles of healing and the acknowledgment of non-Christian miracles of\nhealing by Christian fathers, see Fort, p. 84.\n\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE ATTRIBUTION OF DISEASE TO SATANIC INFLUENCE.\n\n--\"PASTORAL MEDICINE\" CHECKS SCIENTIFIC EFFORT.\n\n\nEspecially prejudicial to a true development of medical science among\nthe first Christians was their attribution of disease to diabolic\ninfluence. As we have seen, this idea had come from far, and, having\nprevailed in Chaldea, Egypt, and Persia, had naturally entered into the\nsacred books of the Hebrews. Moreover, St. Paul had distinctly declared\nthat the gods of the heathen were devils; and everywhere the early\nChristians saw in disease the malignant work of these dethroned powers\nof evil. The Gnostic and Manichaean struggles had ripened the theologic\nidea that, although at times diseases are punishments by the Almighty,\nthe main agency in them is Satanic. The great fathers and renowned\nleaders of the early Church accepted and strengthened this idea. Origen\nsaid: \"It is demons which produce famine, unfruitfulness, corruptions\nof the air, pestilences; they hover concealed in clouds in the lower\natmosphere, and are attracted by the blood and incense which the heathen\noffer to them as gods.\" St. Augustine said: \"All diseases of\nChristians are to be ascribed to these demons; chiefly do they torment\nfresh-baptized Christians, yea, even the guiltless, newborn infants.\"\nTertullian insisted that a malevolent angel is in constant attendance\nupon every person. Gregory of Nazianzus declared that bodily pains are\nprovoked by demons, and that medicines are useless, but that they are\noften cured by the laying on of consecrated hands. St. Nilus and\nSt. Gregory of Tours, echoing St. Ambrose, gave examples to show\nthe sinfulness of resorting to medicine instead of trusting to the\nintercession of saints. St. Bernard, in a letter to certain monks,\nwarned them that to seek relief from disease in medicine was in harmony\nneither with their religion nor with the honour and purity of their\norder. This view even found its way into the canon law, which declared\nthe precepts of medicine contrary to Divine knowledge. As a rule, the\nleaders of the Church discouraged the theory that diseases are due to\nnatural causes, and most of them deprecated a resort to surgeons and\nphysicians rather than to supernatural means.(300)\n\n\n     (300) For Chaldean, Egyptian, and Persian ideas as to the diabolic\norigin of disease, see authorities already cited, especially Maspero\nand Sayce. For Origen, see the Contra Celsum, lib. viii, chap. xxxi. For\nAugustine, see De Divinatione Daemonum, chap. iii (p.585 of Migne, vol.\nxl). For Turtullian and Gregory of Nazianzus, see citations in Sprengel\nand in Fort, p. 6. For St. Nilus, see his life, in the Bollandise Acta\nSanctorum. For Gregory of Tours, see his Historia Francorum, lib. v,\ncap. 6, and his De Mirac. S. Martini, lib. ii, cap. 60. I owe these\ncitations to Mr. Lea (History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages,\nvol. iii, p. 410, note). For the letter of St. Bernard to the monks of\nSt. Anastasius, see his Epistola in Migne, tom. 182, pp. 550, 551. For\nthe canon law, see under De Consecratione, dist. v, c. xxi, \"Contraria\nsunt divinae cognitioni praecepta medicinae: a jejunio revocant,\nlucubrare non sinunt, ab omni intentione meditiationis abducunt.\" For\nthe turning of the Greek mythology into a demonology as largely due\nto St. Paul, see I Corinthians x, 20: \"The things which the Gentiles\nsacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God.\"\n\n\nOut of these and similar considerations was developed the vast system of\n\"pastoral medicine,\" so powerful not only through the Middle Ages, but\neven in modern times, both among Catholics and Protestants. As to its\nresults, we must bear in mind that, while there is no need to attribute\nthe mass of stories regarding miraculous cures to conscious fraud,\nthere was without doubt, at a later period, no small admixture of belief\nbiased by self-interest, with much pious invention and suppression of\nfacts. Enormous revenues flowed into various monasteries and churches\nin all parts of Europe from relics noted for their healing powers. Every\ncathedral, every great abbey, and nearly every parish church claimed\npossession of healing relics. While, undoubtedly, a childlike faith\nwas at the bottom of this belief, there came out of it unquestionably\na great development of the mercantile spirit. The commercial value\nof sundry relics was often very high. In the year 1056 a French\nruler pledged securities to the amount of ten thousand solidi for the\nproduction of the relics of St. Just and St. Pastor, pending a legal\ndecision regarding the ownership between him and the Archbishop\nof Narbonne. The Emperor of Germany on one occasion demanded, as a\nsufficient pledge for the establishment of a city market, the arm of St.\nGeorge. The body of St. Sebastian brought enormous wealth to the Abbey\nof Soissons; Rome, Canterbury, Treves, Marburg, every great city, drew\nlarge revenues from similar sources, and the Venetian Republic ventured\nvery considerable sums in the purchase of relics.\n\nNaturally, then, corporations, whether lay or ecclesiastical, which drew\nlarge revenue from relics looked with little favour on a science which\ntended to discredit their investments.\n\nNowhere, perhaps, in Europe can the philosophy of this development of\nfetichism be better studied to-day than at Cologne. At the cathedral,\npreserved in a magnificent shrine since about the twelfth century, are\nthe skulls of the Three Kings, or Wise Men of the East, who, guided by\nthe star of Bethlehem, brought gifts to the Saviour. These relics\nwere an enormous source of wealth to the cathedral chapter during many\ncenturies. But other ecclesiastical bodies in that city were both\npious and shrewd, and so we find that not far off, at the church of St.\nGereon, a cemetery has been dug up, and the bones distributed over the\nwalls as the relics of St. Gereon and his Theban band of martyrs! Again,\nat the neighbouring church of St. Ursula, we have the later spoils of\nanother cemetery, covering the interior walls of the church as the bones\nof St. Ursula and her eleven thousand virgin martyrs: the fact that many\nof them, as anatomists now declare, are the bones of MEN does not appear\nin the Middle Ages to have diminished their power of competing with the\nrelics at the other shrines in healing efficiency.\n\nNo error in the choice of these healing means seems to have diminished\ntheir efficacy. When Prof. Buckland, the eminent osteologist and\ngeologist, discovered that the relics of St. Rosalia at Palermo, which\nhad for ages cured diseases and warded off epidemics, were the bones\nof a goat, this fact caused not the slightest diminution in their\nmiraculous power.\n\nOther developments of fetich cure were no less discouraging to the\nevolution of medical science. Very important among these was the Agnus\nDei, or piece of wax from the Paschal candles, stamped with the figure\nof a lamb and consecrated by the Pope. In 1471 Pope Paul II expatiated\nto the Church on the efficacy of this fetich in preserving men from\nfire, shipwreck, tempest, lightning, and hail, as well as in assisting\nwomen in childbirth; and he reserved to himself and his successors\nthe manufacture of it. Even as late as 1517 Pope Leo X issued, for a\nconsideration, tickets bearing a cross and the following inscription:\n\"This cross measured forty times makes the height of Christ in\nhis humanity. He who kisses it is preserved for seven days from\nfalling-sickness, apoplexy, and sudden death.\"\n\nNaturally, the belief thus sanctioned by successive heads of the Church,\ninfallible in all teaching regarding faith and morals, created a demand\nfor amulets and charms of all kinds; and under this influence we find\na reversion to old pagan fetiches. Nothing, on the whole, stood more\nconstantly in the way of any proper development of medical science than\nthese fetich cures, whose efficacy was based on theological reasoning\nand sanctioned by ecclesiastical policy. It would be expecting too much\nfrom human nature to imagine that pontiffs who derived large revenues\nfrom the sale of the Agnus Dei, or priests who derived both wealth\nand honours from cures wrought at shrines under their care, or lay\ndignitaries who had invested heavily in relics, should favour the\ndevelopment of any science which undermined their interests.(301)\n\n\n     (301) See Fort's Medical Economy during the Middle Ages, pp. 211-213;\nalso the Handbooks of Murray and Baedeker for North Germany, and various\nhistories of medicine passim; also Collin de Plancy and scores of\nothers. For the discovery that the relics of St. Rosaria at Palermo are\nsimply the bones of a goat, see Gordon, Life of Buckland, pp. 94-96.\nFor an account of the Agnes Dei, see Rydberg, pp. 62, 63; and for\n\"Conception Billets,\" pp. 64 and 65. For Leo X's tickets, see Hausser\n(professor at Heidelberg), Period of Reformation, English translation,\np. 17.\n\n\n\n\n\nV. THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO ANATOMICAL STUDIES.\n\n\nYet a more serious stumbling-block, hindering the beginnings of modern\nmedicine and surgery, was a theory regarding the unlawfulness of\nmeddling with the bodies of the dead. This theory, like so many others\nwhich the Church cherished as peculiarly its own, had really been\ninherited from the old pagan civilizations. So strong was it in Egypt\nthat the embalmer was regarded as accursed; traces of it appear in\nGreco-Roman life, and hence it came into the early Church, where it was\ngreatly strengthened by the addition of perhaps the most noble of mystic\nideas--the recognition of the human body as the temple of the Holy\nSpirit. Hence Tertullian denounced the anatomist Herophilus as a\nbutcher, and St. Augustine spoke of anatomists generally in similar\nterms.\n\nBut this nobler conception was alloyed with a medieval superstition even\nmore effective, when the formula known as the Apostles' Creed had, in\nits teachings regarding the resurrection of the body, supplanted the\ndoctrine laid down by St. Paul. Thence came a dread of mutilating\nthe body in such a way that some injury might result to its final\nresurrection at the Last Day, and additional reasons for hindering\ndissections in the study of anatomy.\n\nTo these arguments against dissection was now added another--one which\nmay well fill us with amazement. It is the remark of the foremost of\nrecent English philosophical historians, that of all organizations in\nhuman history the Church of Rome has caused the greatest spilling of\ninnocent blood. No one conversant with history, even though he admit all\npossible extenuating circumstances, and honour the older Church for the\ngreat services which can undoubtedly be claimed for her, can deny this\nstatement. Strange is it, then, to note that one of the main objections\ndeveloped in the Middle Ages against anatomical studies was the maxim\nthat \"the Church abhors the shedding of blood.\"\n\nOn this ground, in 1248, the Council of Le Mans forbade surgery\nto monks. Many other councils did the same, and at the end of the\nthirteenth century came the most serious blow of all; for then it was\nthat Pope Boniface VIII, without any of that foresight of consequences\nwhich might well have been expected in an infallible teacher, issued\na decretal forbidding a practice which had come into use during the\nCrusades, namely, the separation of the flesh from the bones of the dead\nwhose remains it was desired to carry back to their own country.\n\nThe idea lying at the bottom of this interdiction was in all probability\nthat which had inspired Tertullian to make his bitter utterance against\nHerophilus; but, be that as it may, it soon came to be considered as\nextending to all dissection, and thereby surgery and medicine were\ncrippled for more than two centuries; it was the worst blow they ever\nreceived, for it impressed upon the mind of the Church the belief\nthat all dissection is sacrilege, and led to ecclesiastical mandates\nwithdrawing from the healing art the most thoughtful and cultivated men\nof the Middle Ages and giving up surgery to the lowest class of nomadic\ncharlatans.\n\nSo deeply was this idea rooted in the mind of the universal Church that\nfor over a thousand years surgery was considered dishonourable: the\ngreatest monarchs were often unable to secure an ordinary surgical\noperation; and it was only in 1406 that a better beginning was made,\nwhen the Emperor Wenzel of Germany ordered that dishonour should no\nlonger attach to the surgical profession.(302)\n\n\n     (302) As to religious scruples against dissection, and abhorrence of\nthe Paraschites, or embalmer, see Maspero and Sayce, The Dawn of\nCivilization, p. 216. For denunciation of surgery by the Church\nauthorities, see Sprengel, vol. ii, pp. 432-435; also Fort, pp. 452 et\nseq.; and for the reasoning which led the Church to forbid surgery to\npriests, see especially Fredault, Histoire de la Medecine, p. 200. As\nto the decretal of Boniface VIII, the usual statement is that he forbade\nall dissections. While it was undoubtedly construed universally to\nprohibit dissections for anatomical purposes, its declared intent was as\nstated in the text; that it was constantly construed against anatomical\ninvestigations can not for a moment be denied. This construction is\ntaken for granted in the great Histoire Litteraire de la France, founded\nby the Benedictines, certainly a very high authority as to the main\ncurrent of opinion in the Church. For the decretal of Boniface VIII, see\nthe Corpus Juris Canonici. I have also used the edition of Paris, 1618,\nwhere it may be found on pp. 866, 867. See also, in spite of the special\npleading of Giraldi, the Benedictine Hist. Lit. de la France, tome xvi,\np. 98.\n\n\n\n\n\nVI. NEW BEGINNINGS OF MEDICAL SCIENCE.\n\n\nIn spite of all these opposing forces, the evolution of medical science\ncontinued, though but slowly. In the second century of the Christian\nera Galen had made himself a great authority at Rome, and from Rome had\nswayed the medical science of the world: his genius triumphed over\nthe defects of his method; but, though he gave a powerful impulse to\nmedicine, his dogmatism stood in its way long afterward.\n\nThe places where medicine, such as it thus became, could be applied,\nwere at first mainly the infirmaries of various monasteries, especially\nthe larger ones of the Benedictine order: these were frequently\ndeveloped into hospitals. Many monks devoted themselves to such medical\nstudies as were permitted, and sundry churchmen and laymen did much to\nsecure and preserve copies of ancient medical treatises. So, too, in the\ncathedral schools established by Charlemagne and others, provision was\ngenerally made for medical teaching; but all this instruction, whether\nin convents or schools, was wretchedly poor. It consisted not\nin developing by individual thought and experiment the gifts of\nHippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen, but almost entirely in the\nparrot-like repetition of their writings.\n\nBut, while the inherited ideas of Church leaders were thus unfavourable\nto any proper development of medical science, there were two bodies of\nmen outside the Church who, though largely fettered by superstition,\nwere far less so than the monks and students of ecclesiastical schools:\nthese were the Jews and Mohammedans. The first of these especially had\ninherited many useful sanitary and hygienic ideas, which had probably\nbeen first evolved by the Egyptians, and from them transmitted to the\nmodern world mainly through the sacred books attributed to Moses.\n\nThe Jewish scholars became especially devoted to medical science. To\nthem is largely due the building up of the School of Salerno, which we\nfind flourishing in the tenth century. Judged by our present standards\nits work was poor indeed, but compared with other medical instruction\nof the time it was vastly superior: it developed hygienic principles\nespecially, and brought medicine upon a higher plane.\n\nStill more important is the rise of the School of Montpellier; this\nwas due almost entirely to Jewish physicians, and it developed medical\nstudies to a yet higher point, doing much to create a medical profession\nworthy of the name throughout southern Europe.\n\nAs to the Arabians, we find them from the tenth to the fourteenth\ncentury, especially in Spain, giving much thought to medicine, and to\nchemistry as subsidiary to it. About the beginning of the ninth century,\nwhen the greater Christian writers were supporting fetich by theology,\nAlmamon, the Moslem, declared, \"They are the elect of God, his best\nand most useful servants, whose lives are devoted to the improvement of\ntheir rational faculties.\" The influence of Avicenna, the translator\nof the works of Aristotle, extended throughout all Europe during the\neleventh century. The Arabians were indeed much fettered by tradition\nin medical science, but their translations of Hippocrates and Galen\npreserved to the world the best thus far developed in medicine, and\nstill better were their contributions to pharmacy: these remain of value\nto the present hour.(303)\n\n\n     (303) For the great services rendered to the development of medicine by\nthe Jews, see Monteil, Medecine en France, p. 58; also the historians of\nmedicine generally. For the quotation from Almamon, see Gibbon, vol.\nx, p. 42. For the services of both Jews and Arabians, see Bedarride,\nHistoire des Juifs, p. 115; also Sismondi, Histoire des Francais, tome\ni, p. 191. For the Arabians, especially, see Rosseeuw Saint-Hilaire,\nHistoire d'Espagne, Paris, 1844, vol. iii, pp. 191 et seq. For\nthe tendency of the Mosaic books to insist on hygienic rather than\ntherapeutical treatment, and its consequences among Jewish physicians,\nsee Sprengel, but especially Fredault, p.14.\n\n\nVarious Christian laymen also rose above the prevailing theologic\natmosphere far enough to see the importance of promoting scientific\ndevelopment. First among these we may name the Emperor Charlemagne; he\nand his great minister, Alcuin, not only promoted medical studies in the\nschools they founded, but also made provision for the establishment of\nbotanic gardens in which those herbs were especially cultivated which\nwere supposed to have healing virtues. So, too, in the thirteenth\ncentury, the Emperor Frederick II, though under the ban of the Pope,\nbrought together in his various journeys, and especially in his\ncrusading expeditions, many Greek and Arabic manuscripts, and took\nspecial pains to have those which concerned medicine preserved and\nstudied; he also promoted better ideas of medicine and embodied them in\nlaws.\n\nMen of science also rose, in the stricter sense of the word, even in\nthe centuries under the most complete sway of theological thought and\necclesiastical power; a science, indeed, alloyed with theology, but\nstill infolding precious germs. Of these were men like Arnold of\nVillanova, Bertrand de Gordon, Albert of Bollstadt, Basil Valentine,\nRaymond Lully, and, above all, Roger Bacon; all of whom cultivated\nsciences subsidiary to medicine, and in spite of charges of sorcery,\nwith possibilities of imprisonment and death, kept the torch of\nknowledge burning, and passed it on to future generations.(304)\n\n\n     (304) For the progress of sciences subsidiary to medicine even in the\ndarkest ages, see Fort, pp. 374, 375; also Isensee, Geschichte der\nMedicin, pp. 225 et seq.; also Monteil, p. 89; Heller, Geschichte der\nPhysik, vol. i, bk. 3; also Kopp, Geschichte der Chemie. For Frederick\nII and his Medicinal-Gesetz, see Baas, p. 221, but especially Von\nRaumer, Geschichte der Hohenstaufen, Leipsic, 1872, vol. iii, p. 259.\n\n\nFrom the Church itself, even when the theological atmosphere was\nmost dense, rose here and there men who persisted in something like\nscientific effort. As early as the ninth century, Bertharius, a monk of\nMonte Cassino, prepared two manuscript volumes of prescriptions selected\nfrom ancient writers; other monks studied them somewhat, and, during\nsucceeding ages, scholars like Hugo, Abbot of St. Denis,--Notker, monk\nof St. Gall,--Hildegard, Abbess of Rupertsberg,--Milo, Archbishop of\nBeneventum,--and John of St. Amand, Canon of Tournay, did something for\nmedicine as they understood it. Unfortunately, they generally understood\nits theory as a mixture of deductions from Scripture with dogmas from\nGalen, and its practice as a mixture of incantations with fetiches.\nEven Pope Honorius III did something for the establishment of medical\nschools; but he did so much more to place ecclesiastical and theological\nfetters upon teachers and taught, that the value of his gifts may well\nbe doubted. All germs of a higher evolution of medicine were for ages\nwell kept under by the theological spirit. As far back as the sixth\ncentury so great a man as Pope Gregory I showed himself hostile to the\ndevelopment of this science. In the beginning of the twelfth century the\nCouncil of Rheims interdicted the study of law and physic to monks, and\na multitude of other councils enforced this decree. About the middle of\nthe same century St. Bernard still complained that monks had too much to\ndo with medicine; and a few years later we have decretals like those of\nPope Alexander III forbidding monks to study or practise it. For\nmany generations there appear evidences of a desire among the more\nbroad-minded churchmen to allow the cultivation of medical science among\necclesiastics: Popes like Clement III and Sylvester II seem to have\nfavoured this, and we even hear of an Archbishop of Canterbury skilled\nin medicine; but in the beginning of the thirteenth century the Fourth\nCouncil of the Lateran forbade surgical operations to be practised by\npriests, deacons, and subdeacons; and some years later Honorius III\nreiterated this decree and extended it. In 1243 the Dominican order\nforbade medical treatises to be brought into their monasteries, and\nfinally all participation of ecclesiastics in the science and art of\nmedicine was effectually prevented.(305)\n\n\n     (305) For statements as to these decrees of the highest Church and\nmonastic authorities against medicine and surgery, see Sprengel, Baas,\nGeschichte der Medicin, p. 204, and elsewhere; also Buckle, Posthumous\nWorks, vol. ii, p. 567. For a long list of Church dignitaries who\npractised a semi-theological medicine in the Middle Ages, see Baas,\npp. 204, 205. For Bertharius, Hildegard, and others mentioned, see also\nSprengel and other historians of medicine. For clandestine study and\npractice of medicine by sundry ecclesiastics in spite of the prohibition\nby the Church, see Von Raumer, Hohenstaufen, vol. vi, p. 438. For some\nremarks on this subject by an eminent and learned ecclesiastic,\nsee Ricker, O. S. B., professor in the University of Vienna,\nPastoral-Psychiatrie, 1894, pp. 12,13.\n\n\n\n\n\nVII. THEOLOGICAL DISCOURAGEMENT OF MEDICINE.\n\n\nWhile various churchmen, building better than they knew, thus did\nsomething to lay foundations for medical study, the Church authorities,\nas a rule, did even more to thwart it among the very men who, had they\nbeen allowed liberty, would have cultivated it to the highest advantage.\n\nThen, too, we find cropping out every where the feeling that, since\nsupernatural means are so abundant, there is something irreligious\nin seeking cure by natural means: ever and anon we have appeals to\nScripture, and especially to the case of King Asa, who trusted to\nphysicians rather than to the priests of Jahveh, and so died. Hence it\nwas that St. Bernard declared that monks who took medicine were guilty\nof conduct unbecoming to religion. Even the School of Salerno was held\nin aversion by multitudes of strict churchmen, since it prescribed rules\nfor diet, thereby indicating a belief that diseases arise from natural\ncauses and not from the malice of the devil: moreover, in the medical\nschools Hippocrates was studied, and he had especially declared that\ndemoniacal possession is \"nowise more divine, nowise more infernal, than\nany other disease.\" Hence it was, doubtless, that the Lateran Council,\nabout the beginning of the thirteenth century, forbade physicians,\nunder pain of exclusion from the Church, to undertake medical treatment\nwithout calling in ecclesiastical advice.\n\nThis view was long cherished in the Church, and nearly two hundred and\nfifty years later Pope Pius V revived it by renewing the command of Pope\nInnocent and enforcing it with penalties. Not only did Pope Pius order\nthat all physicians before administering treatment should call in \"a\nphysician of the soul,\" on the ground, as he declares, that \"bodily\ninfirmity frequently arises from sin,\" but he ordered that, if at the\nend of three days the patient had not made confession to a priest, the\nmedical man should cease his treatment, under pain of being deprived of\nhis right to practise, and of expulsion from the faculty if he were a\nprofessor, and that every physician and professor of medicine should\nmake oath that he was strictly fulfilling these conditions.\n\nOut of this feeling had grown up another practice, which made the\ndevelopment of medicine still more difficult--the classing of scientific\nmen generally with sorcerers and magic-mongers: from this largely rose\nthe charge of atheism against physicians, which ripened into a proverb,\n\"Where there are three physicians there are two atheists.\"(306)\n\n\n     (306) \"Ubi sunt tres medici ibi sunt duo athei.\" For the bull of Pius V,\nsee the Bullarium Romanum, ed. Gaude, Naples, 1882, tom. vii, pp. 430,\n431.\n\n\nMagic was so common a charge that many physicians seemed to believe\nit themselves. In the tenth century Gerbert, afterward known as\nPope Sylvester II, was at once suspected of sorcery when he showed a\ndisposition to adopt scientific methods; in the eleventh century this\ncharge nearly cost the life of Constantine Africanus when he broke from\nthe beaten path of medicine; in the thirteenth, it gave Roger Bacon, one\nof the greatest benefactors of mankind, many years of imprisonment, and\nnearly brought him to the stake: these cases are typical of very many.\n\nStill another charge against physicians who showed a talent for\ninvestigation was that of Mohammedanism and Averroism; and Petrarch\nstigmatized Averroists as \"men who deny Genesis and bark at\nChrist.\"(307)\n\n\n     (307) For Averroes, see Renan, Averroes et l'Averroisme, Paris, 1861,\npp. 327-335. For a perfectly just statement of the only circumstances\nwhich can justify a charge of atheism, see Rev. Dr. Deems, in Popular\nScience Monthly, February, 1876.\n\n\nThe effect of this widespread ecclesiastical opposition was, that for\nmany centuries the study of medicine was relegated mainly to the lowest\norder of practitioners. There was, indeed, one orthodox line of medical\nevolution during the later Middle Ages: St. Thomas Aquinas insisted that\nthe forces of the body are independent of its physical organization,\nand that therefore these forces are to be studied by the scholastic\nphilosophy and the theological method, instead of by researches into the\nstructure of the body; as a result of this, mingled with survivals of\nvarious pagan superstitions, we have in anatomy and physiology such\ndoctrines as the increase and decrease of the brain with the phases\nof the moon, the ebb and flow of human vitality with the tides of the\nocean, the use of the lungs to fan the heart, the function of the liver\nas the seat of love, and that of the spleen as the centre of wit.\n\nClosely connected with these methods of thought was the doctrine of\nsignatures. It was reasoned that the Almighty must have set his sign\nupon the various means of curing disease which he has provided: hence\nit was held that bloodroot, on account of its red juice, is good for the\nblood; liverwort, having a leaf like the liver, cures diseases of the\nliver; eyebright, being marked with a spot like an eye, cures diseases\nof the eyes; celandine, having a yellow juice, cures jaundice; bugloss,\nresembling a snake's head, cures snakebite; red flannel, looking like\nblood, cures blood-taints, and therefore rheumatism; bear's grease,\nbeing taken from an animal thickly covered with hair, is recommended to\npersons fearing baldness.(308)\n\n\n     (308) For a summary of the superstitions which arose under the\ntheological doctrine of signatures, see Dr. Eccles's admirable little\ntract on the Evolution of Medical Science, p. 140; see also Scoffern,\nScience and Folk Lore, p. 76.\n\n\nStill another method evolved by this theological pseudoscience was that\nof disgusting the demon with the body which he tormented--hence the\npatient was made to swallow or apply to himself various unspeakable\nordures, with such medicines as the livers of toads, the blood of frogs\nand rats, fibres of the hangman's rope, and ointment made from the\nbody of gibbeted criminals. Many of these were survivals of heathen\nsuperstitions, but theologic reasoning wrought into them an orthodox\nsignificance. As an example of this mixture of heathen with Christian\nmagic, we may cite the following from a medieval medical book as a\nsalve against \"nocturnal goblin visitors\": \"Take hop plant, wormwood,\nbishopwort, lupine, ash-throat, henbane, harewort, viper's bugloss,\nheathberry plant, cropleek, garlic, grains of hedgerife, githrife, and\nfennel. Put these worts into a vessel, set them under the altar, sing\nover them nine masses, boil them in butter and sheep's grease, add much\nholy salt, strain through a cloth, throw the worts into running water.\nIf any ill tempting occur to a man, or an elf or goblin night visitors\ncome, smear his body with this salve, and put it on his eyes, and cense\nhim with incense, and sign him frequently with the sign of the cross.\nHis condition will soon be better.\"(309)\n\n\n     (309) For a list of unmentionable ordures used in Germany near the end\nof the seventeenth century, see Lammert, Volksmedizin und medizinischer\nAberglaube in Bayern, Wurzburg, 1869, p. 34, note. For the English\nprescription given, see Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wort-cunning, and\nStar-craft of Early England, in the Master of the Rolls' series,\nLondon, 1865, vol. ii, pp. 345 and following. Still another of these\nprescriptions given by Cockayne covers three or four octavo pages. For\nvery full details of this sort of sacred pseudo-science in Germany, with\naccounts of survivals of it at the present time, see Wuttke, Prof. der\nTheologie in Halle, Der Deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart, Berlin,\n1869, passim. For France, see Rambaud, Histoire de la Civilisation\nfrancaise, pp. 371 et seq.\n\n\nAs to surgery, this same amalgamation of theology with survivals of\npagan beliefs continued to check the evolution of medical science down\nto the modern epoch. The nominal hostility of the Church to the shedding\nof blood withdrew, as we have seen, from surgical practice the great\nbody of her educated men; hence surgery remained down to the fifteenth\ncentury a despised profession, its practice continued largely in\nthe hands of charlatans, and down to a very recent period the\nname \"barber-surgeon\" was a survival of this. In such surgery, the\napplication of various ordures relieved fractures; the touch of the\nhangman cured sprains; the breath of a donkey expelled poison; friction\nwith a dead man's tooth cured toothache.(310)\n\n\n     (310) On the low estate of surgery during the Middle Ages, see\nthe histories of medicine already cited, and especially Kotelmann,\nGesundheitspflege im Mittelalter, Hamburg, 1890, pp. 216 et seq.\n\n\nThe enormous development of miracle and fetich cures in the Church\ncontinued during century after century, and here probably lay the main\ncauses of hostility between the Church on the one hand and the better\nsort of physicians on the other; namely, in the fact that the Church\nsupposed herself in possession of something far better than scientific\nmethods in medicine. Under the sway of this belief a natural and\nlaudable veneration for the relics of Christian martyrs was developed\nmore and more into pure fetichism.\n\nThus the water in which a single hair of a saint had been dipped was\nused as a purgative; water in which St. Remy's ring had been dipped\ncured fevers; wine in which the bones of a saint had been dipped cured\nlunacy; oil from a lamp burning before the tomb of St. Gall cured\ntumours; St. Valentine cured epilepsy; St. Christopher, throat diseases;\nSt. Eutropius, dropsy; St. Ovid, deafness; St. Gervase, rheumatism; St.\nApollonia, toothache; St. Vitus, St. Anthony, and a multitude of other\nsaints, the maladies which bear their names. Even as late as 1784 we\nfind certain authorities in Bavaria ordering that any one bitten by a\nmad dog shall at once put up prayers at the shrine of St. Hubert, and\nnot waste his time in any attempts at medical or surgical cure.(311)\nIn the twelfth century we find a noted cure attempted by causing the\ninvalid to drink water in which St. Bernard had washed his hands.\nFlowers which had rested on the tomb of a saint, when steeped in water,\nwere supposed to be especially efficacious in various diseases. The\npulpit everywhere dwelt with unction on the reality of fetich cures, and\namong the choice stories collected by Archbishop Jacques de Vitry for\nthe use of preachers was one which, judging from its frequent recurrence\nin monkish literature, must have sunk deep into the popular mind: \"Two\nlazy beggars, one blind, the other lame, try to avoid the relics of St.\nMartin, borne about in procession, so that they may not be healed\nand lose their claim to alms. The blind man takes the lame man on his\nshoulders to guide him, but they are caught in the crowd and healed\nagainst their will.\"(312)\n\n\n     (311) See Baas, p. 614; also Biedermann.\n\n\n     (312) For the efficacy of flowers, see the Bollandist Lives of the\nSaints, cited in Fort, p. 279; also pp. 457, 458. For the story of those\nunwillingly cured, see the Exempla of Jacques de Vitry, edited by Prof.\nT. F. Crane, of Cornell University, London, 1890, pp. 52, 182.\n\n\nVery important also throughout the Middle Ages were the medical\nvirtues attributed to saliva. The use of this remedy had early Oriental\nsanction. It is clearly found in Egypt. Pliny devotes a considerable\npart of one of his chapters to it; Galen approved it; Vespasian, when he\nvisited Alexandria, is said to have cured a blind man by applying saliva\nto his eves; but the great example impressed most forcibly upon the\nmedieval mind was the use of it ascribed in the fourth Gospel to Jesus\nhimself: thence it came not only into Church ceremonial, but largely\ninto medical practice.(313)\n\n\n     (313) As to the use of saliva in medicine, see Story, Castle of St.\nAngelo, and Other Essays, London, 1877, pp. 208 and elsewhere. For\nPliny, Galen, and others, see the same, p. 211; see also the book of\nTobit, chap. xi, 2-13. For the case of Vespasian, see Suetonius, Life of\nVespasian; also Tacitus, Historiae, lib. iv, c. 81. For its use by St.\nFrancis Xavier, see Coleridge, Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier,\nLondon, 1872.\n\n\nAs the theological atmosphere thickened, nearly every country had its\nlong list of saints, each with a special power over some one organ or\ndisease. The clergy, having great influence over the medical schools,\nconscientiously mixed this fetich medicine with the beginnings of\nscience. In the tenth century, even at the School of Salerno, we find\nthat the sick were cured not only by medicine, but by the relics of St.\nMatthew and others.\n\nHuman nature, too, asserted itself, then as now, by making various\npious cures fashionable for a time and then allowing them to become\nunfashionable. Just as we see the relics of St. Cosmo and St. Damian in\ngreat vogue during the early Middle Ages, but out of fashion and without\nefficacy afterward, so we find in the thirteenth century that the bones\nof St. Louis, having come into fashion, wrought multitudes of cures,\nwhile in the fourteenth, having become unfashionable, they ceased to\nact, and gave place for a time to the relics of St. Roch of Montpellier\nand St. Catherine of Sienna, which in their turn wrought many cures\nuntil they too became out of date and yielded to other saints. Just so\nin modern times the healing miracles of La Salette have lost prestige in\nsome measure, and those of Lourdes have come into fashion.(314)\n\n\n     (314) For one of these lists of saints curing diseaes, see Pettigrew,\nOn Superstitions connected with Medicine; for another, see Jacob,\nSuperstitions Populaires, pp. 96-100; also Rydberg, p. 69; also Maury,\nRambaud, and others. For a comparison of fashions in miracles with\nfashions in modern healing agents, see Littre, Medecine et Medecins, pp.\n118, 136 and elsewhere; also Sprengel, vol. ii, p. 143.\n\n\nEven such serious matters as fractures, calculi, and difficult\nparturition, in which modern science has achieved some of its greatest\ntriumphs, were then dealt with by relics; and to this hour the ex votos\nhanging at such shrines as those of St. Genevieve at Paris, of St.\nAntony at Padua, of the Druid image at Chartres, of the Virgin at\nEinsiedeln and Lourdes, of the fountain at La Salette, are survivals of\nthis same conception of disease and its cure.\n\nSo, too, with a multitude of sacred pools, streams, and spots of earth.\nIn Ireland, hardly a parish has not had one such sacred centre; in\nEngland and Scotland there have been many; and as late as 1805 the\neminent Dr. Milner, of the Roman Catholic Church, gave a careful\nand earnest account of a miraculous cure wrought at a sacred well in\nFlintshire. In all parts of Europe the pious resort to wells and springs\ncontinued long after the close of the Middle Ages, and has not entirely\nceased to-day. It is not at all necessary to suppose intentional\ndeception in the origin and maintenance of all fetich cures. Although\ntwo different judicial investigations of the modern miracles at La\nSalette have shown their origin tainted with fraud, and though the\nrecent restoration of the Cathedral of Trondhjem has revealed the fact\nthat the healing powers of the sacred spring which once brought such\ngreat revenues to that shrine were assisted by angelic voices spoken\nthrough a tube in the walls, not unlike the pious machinery discovered\nin the Temple of Isis at Pompeii, there is little doubt that the great\nmajority of fountain and even shrine cures, such as they have been, have\nresulted from a natural law, and that belief in them was based on honest\nargument from Scripture. For the theological argument which thus stood\nin the way of science was simply this: if the Almighty saw fit to raise\nthe dead man who touched the bones of Elisha, why should he not restore\nto life the patient who touches at Cologne the bones of the Wise Men of\nthe East who followed the star of the Nativity? If Naaman was cured by\ndipping himself in the waters of the Jordan, and so many others by\ngoing down into the Pool of Siloam, why should not men still be cured by\nbathing in pools which men equally holy with Elisha have consecrated?\nIf one sick man was restored by touching the garments of St. Paul, why\nshould not another sick man be restored by touching the seamless coat of\nChrist at Treves, or the winding-sheet of Christ at Besancon? And out of\nall these inquiries came inevitably that question whose logical answer\nwas especially injurious to the development of medical science: Why\nshould men seek to build up scientific medicine and surgery,\nwhen relics, pilgrimages, and sacred observances, according to an\noverwhelming mass of concurrent testimony, have cured and are curing\nhosts of sick folk in all parts of Europe? (315)\n\n\n     (315) For sacred fountains in modern times, see Pettigrew, as above,\np. 42; also Dalyell, Darker Superstitions of Scotland, pp. 82 and\nfollowing; also Montalembert, Les Moines d'Occident, tome iii, p. 323,\nnote. For those in Ireland, with many curious details, see S. C. Hall,\nIreland, its Scenery and Character, London, 1841, vol. i, p. 282, and\npassim. For the case in Flintshire, see Authentic Documents relative to\nthe Miraculous Cure of Winifred White, of the Town of Wolverhampton, at\nHolywell, Flintshire, on the 28th of June, 1805, by John Milner, D. D.,\nVicar Apostolic, etc., London, 1805. For sacred wells in France, see\nChevart, Histoire de Chartres, vol. i, pp. 84-89, and French local\nhistories generally. For superstitions attaching to springs in Germany,\nsee Wuttke, Volksaberglaube, Sections 12 and 356. For one of the most\nexquisitely wrought works of modern fiction, showing perfectly the\nrecent evolution of miraculous powers at a fashionable spring in France,\nsee Gustave Droz, Autour d'une Source. The reference to the old pious\nmachinery at Trondhjem is based upon personal observation by the present\nwriter in August, 1893.\n\n\nStill another development of the theological spirit, mixed with\nprofessional exclusiveness and mob prejudice, wrought untold injury.\nEven to those who had become so far emancipated from allegiance to\nfetich cures as to consult physicians, it was forbidden to consult those\nwho, as a rule, were the best. From a very early period of European\nhistory the Jews had taken the lead in medicine; their share in founding\nthe great schools of Salerno and Montpellier we have already noted, and\nin all parts of Europe we find them acknowledged leaders in the healing\nart. The Church authorities, enforcing the spirit of the time, were\nespecially severe against these benefactors: that men who openly\nrejected the means of salvation, and whose souls were undeniably lost,\nshould heal the elect seemed an insult to Providence; preaching friars\ndenounced them from the pulpit, and the rulers in state and church,\nwhile frequently secretly consulting them, openly proscribed them.\n\nGregory of Tours tells us of an archdeacon who, having been partially\ncured of disease of the eyes by St. Martin, sought further aid from a\nJewish physician, with the result that neither the saint nor the Jew\ncould help him afterward. Popes Eugene IV, Nicholas V, and Calixtus III\nespecially forbade Christians to employ them. The Trullanean Council in\nthe eighth century, the Councils of Beziers and Alby in the thirteenth,\nthe Councils of Avignon and Salamanca in the fourteenth, the Synod\nof Bamberg and the Bishop of Passau in the fifteenth, the Council\nof Avignon in the sixteenth, with many others, expressly forbade the\nfaithful to call Jewish physicians or surgeons; such great preachers as\nJohn Geiler and John Herolt thundered from the pulpit against them\nand all who consulted them. As late as the middle of the seventeenth\ncentury, when the City Council of Hall, in Wurtemberg, gave some\nprivileges to a Jewish physician \"on account of his admirable experience\nand skill,\" the clergy of the city joined in a protest, declaring that\n\"it were better to die with Christ than to be cured by a Jew doctor\naided by the devil.\" Still, in their extremity, bishops, cardinals,\nkings, and even popes, insisted on calling in physicians of the hated\nrace.(316)\n\n\n     (316) For the general subject of the influence of theological idea upon\nmedicine, see Fort, History of Medical Economy during the Middle\nAges, New York, 1883, chaps. xiii and xviii; also Colin de Plancy,\nDictionnaire des Reliques, passim; also Rambaud, Histoire de la\nCivilisation francaise, Paris, 1885, vol. i, chap. xviii; also Sprengel,\nvol. ii, p. 345, and elsewhere; also Baas and others. For proofs that\nthe School of Salerno was not founded by the monks, Benedictine or\nother, but by laymen, who left out a faculty of theology from their\norganization, see Haeser, Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medicin, vol. i,\np. 646; also Baas. For a very strong statement that married professors,\nwomen, and Jews were admitted to professional chairs, see Baas, pp.\n208 et seq.; also summary by Dr. Payne, article in the Encyc. Brit.\nSprengel's old theory that the school was founded by Benedictines\nseems now entirely given up; see Haeser and Bass on the subject; also\nDaremberg, La Medecine, p. 133. For the citation from Gregory of Tours,\nsee his Hist. Francorum, lib. vi. For the eminence of Jewish physicians\nand proscription of them, see Beugnot, Les Juifs d'Occident, Paris,\n1824, pp. 76-94; also Bedarride, Les Juifs en France, en Italie, et\nen Espagne, chaps. v, viii, x, and xiii; also Renouard, Histoire de\nla Medecine, Paris, 1846, tome i, p. 439; also especially Lammert,\nVolksmedizin, etc., in Bayern, p. 6, note. For Church decrees against\nthem, see the Acta Conciliorum, ed. Hardouin, vol. x, pp. 1634, 1700,\n1870, 1873, etc. For denunciations of them by Geiler and others, see\nKotelmann, Gesundheitspflege im Mittelalter, pp. 194, 195. For a list of\nkings and popes who persisted in having Jewish physicians and for other\ncurious information of the sort, see Prof. Levi of Vercelli, Cristiani\ned Ebrei nel Medio Evo, pp. 200-207; and for a very valuable summary,\nsee Lecky, History of Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii, pp. 265-271.\n\n\n\n\n\nVIII. FETICH CURES UNDER PROTESTANTISM.--THE ROYAL TOUCH.\n\n\nThe Reformation made no sudden change in the sacred theory of medicine.\nLuther, as is well known, again and again ascribed his own diseases to\n\"devils' spells,\" declaring that \"Satan produces all the maladies which\nafflict mankind, for he is the prince of death,\" and that \"he poisons\nthe air\"; but that \"no malady comes from God.\" From that day down to\nthe faith cures of Boston, Old Orchard, and among the sect of \"Peculiar\nPeople\" in our own time, we see the results among Protestants of seeking\nthe cause of disease in Satanic influence and its cure in fetichism.\n\nYet Luther, with his sturdy common sense, broke away from one belief\nwhich has interfered with the evolution of medicine from the dawn of\nChristianity until now. When that troublesome declaimer, Carlstadt,\ndeclared that \"whoso falls sick shall use no physic, but commit his case\nto God, praying that His will be done,\" Luther asked, \"Do you eat when\nyou are hungry?\" and the answer being in the affirmative, he continued,\n\"Even so you may use physic, which is God's gift just as meat and drink\nis, or whatever else we use for the preservation of life.\" Hence it was,\ndoubtless, that the Protestant cities of Germany were more ready than\nothers to admit anatomical investigation by proper dissections.(317)\n\n\n     (317) For Luther's belief and his answer to Carlstadt, see his Table\nTalk, especially in Hazlitt's edition, pp. 250-257; also his letters\npassim. For recent \"faith cures,\" see Dr. Buckley's articles on Faith\nHealing and Kindred Phenomena, in The Century, 1886. For the greater\nreadiness of Protestant cities to facilitate dissections, see Toth,\nAndreas Vesalius, p. 33.\n\n\nPerhaps the best-known development of a theological view in the\nProtestant Church was that mainly evolved in England out of a French\ngerm of theological thought--a belief in the efficacy of the royal touch\nin sundry diseases, especially epilepsy and scrofula, the latter being\nconsequently known as the king's evil. This mode of cure began, so\nfar as history throws light upon it, with Edward the Confessor in the\neleventh century, and came down from reign to reign, passing from the\nCatholic saint to Protestant debauchees upon the English throne, with\never-increasing miraculous efficacy.\n\nTestimony to the reality of these cures is overwhelming. As a simple\nmatter of fact, there are no miracles of healing in the history of the\nhuman race more thoroughly attested than those wrought by the touch\nof Henry VIII, Elizabeth, the Stuarts, and especially of that chosen\nvessel, Charles II. Though Elizabeth could not bring herself fully to\nbelieve in the reality of these cures, Dr. Tooker, the Queen's chaplain,\nafterward Dean of Lichfield, testifies fully of his own knowledge to the\ncures wrought by her, as also does William Clowes, the Queen's surgeon.\nFuller, in his Church History, gives an account of a Roman Catholic\nwho was thus cured by the Queen's touch and converted to Protestantism.\nSimilar testimony exists as to cures wrought by James I. Charles I also\nenjoyed the same power, in spite of the public declaration against its\nreality by Parliament. In one case the King saw a patient in the crowd,\ntoo far off to be touched, and simply said, \"God bless thee and grant\nthee thy desire\"; whereupon, it is asserted, the blotches and humours\ndisappeared from the patient's body and appeared in the bottle of\nmedicine which he held in his hand; at least so says Dr. John Nicholas,\nWarden of Winchester College, who declares this of his own knowledge to\nbe every word of it true.\n\nBut the most incontrovertible evidence of this miraculous gift is found\nin the case of Charles II, the most thoroughly cynical debauchee who\never sat on the English throne before the advent of George IV. He\ntouched nearly one hundred thousand persons, and the outlay for gold\nmedals issued to the afflicted on these occasions rose in some years\nas high as ten thousand pounds. John Brown, surgeon in ordinary to his\nMajesty and to St. Thomas's Hospital, and author of many learned works\non surgery and anatomy, published accounts of sixty cures due to the\ntouch of this monarch; and Sergeant-Surgeon Wiseman devotes an entire\nbook to proving the reality of these cures, saying, \"I myself have been\nfrequent witness to many hundreds of cures performed by his Majesty's\ntouch alone without any assistance of chirurgery, and these many of\nthem had tyred out the endeavours of able chirurgeons before they came\nthither.\" Yet it is especially instructive to note that, while in no\nother reign were so many people touched for scrofula, and in none were\nso many cures vouched for, in no other reign did so many people die of\nthat disease: the bills of mortality show this clearly, and the reason\ndoubtless is the general substitution of supernatural for scientific\nmeans of cure. This is but one out of many examples showing the havoc\nwhich a scientific test always makes among miracles if men allow it to\nbe applied.\n\nTo James II the same power continued; and if it be said, in the words\nof Lord Bacon, that \"imagination is next of kin to miracle--a working\nfaith,\" something else seems required to account for the testimony\nof Dr. Heylin to cures wrought by the royal touch upon babes in their\nmothers' arms. Myth-making and marvel-mongering were evidently at work\nhere as in so many other places, and so great was the fame of these\ncures that we find, in the year before James was dethroned, a pauper at\nPortsmouth, New Hampshire, petitioning the General Assembly to enable\nhim to make the voyage to England in order that he may be healed by the\nroyal touch.\n\nThe change in the royal succession does not seem to have interfered with\nthe miracle; for, though William III evidently regarded the whole\nthing as a superstition, and on one occasion is said to have touched\na patient, saying to him, \"God give you better health and more sense,\"\nWhiston assures us that this person was healed, notwithstanding\nWilliam's incredulity.\n\nAs to Queen Anne, Dr. Daniel Turner, in his Art of Surgery, relates\nthat several cases of scrofula which had been unsuccessfully treated\nby himself and Dr. Charles Bernard, sergeant-surgeon to her Majesty,\nyielded afterward to the efficacy of the Queen's touch. Naturally does\nCollier, in his Ecclesiastical History, say regarding these cases that\nto dispute them \"is to come to the extreme of scepticism, to deny our\nsenses and be incredulous even to ridiculousness.\" Testimony to the\nreality of these cures is indeed overwhelming, and a multitude of most\nsober scholars, divines, and doctors of medicine declared the evidence\nabsolutely convincing. That the Church of England accepted the doctrine\nof the royal touch is witnessed by the special service provided in the\nPrayer-Book of that period for occasions when the King exercised this\ngift. The ceremony was conducted with great solemnity and pomp: during\nthe reading of the service and the laying on of the King's hands, the\nattendant bishop or priest recited the words, \"They shall lay their\nhands on the sick, and they shall recover\"; afterward came special\nprayers, the Epistle and Gospel, with the blessing, and finally his\nMajesty washed his royal hands in golden vessels which high noblemen\nheld for him.\n\nIn France, too, the royal touch continued, with similar testimony to\nits efficacy. On a certain Easter Sunday, that pious king, Louis XIV,\ntouched about sixteen hundred persons at Versailles.\n\nThis curative power was, then, acknowledged far and wide, by Catholics\nand Protestants alike, upon the Continent, in Great Britain, and in\nAmerica; and it descended not only in spite of the transition of the\nEnglish kings from Catholicism to Protestantism, but in spite of\nthe transition from the legitimate sovereignty of the Stuarts to the\nillegitimate succession of the House of Orange. And yet, within a\nfew years after the whole world held this belief, it was dead; it had\nshrivelled away in the growing scientific light at the dawn of the\neighteenth century.(318)\n\n\n     (318) For the royal touch, see Becket, Free and Impartial Inquiry into\nthe Antiquity and Efficacy of Touching for the King's Evil, 1772, cited\nin Pettigrew, p. 128, and elsewhere; also Scoffern, Science and Folk\nLore, London, 1870, pp. 413 and following; also Adams, The Healing\nArt, London, 1887, vol. i, pp. 53-60; and especially Lecky, History of\nEuropean Morals, vol. i, chapter on The Conversion of Rome; also his\nHistory of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. i, chap. i. For\ncurious details regarding the mode of conducting the ceremony, see\nEvelyn's Diary; also Lecky, as above. For the royal touch in France, and\nfor a claim to its possession in feudal times by certain noble families,\nsee Rambaud, Hist. de la Civ. francaise, p. 375.\n\n\n\n\n\nIX. THE SCIENTIFIC STRUGGLE FOR ANATOMY.\n\n\nWe may now take up the evolution of medical science out of the medieval\nview and its modern survivals. All through the Middle Ages, as we have\nseen, some few laymen and ecclesiastics here and there, braving the\nedicts of the Church and popular superstition, persisted in\nmedical study and practice: this was especially seen at the greater\nuniversities, which had become somewhat emancipated from ecclesiastical\ncontrol. In the thirteenth century the University of Paris gave a strong\nimpulse to the teaching of medicine, and in that and the following\ncentury we begin to find the first intelligible reports of medical cases\nsince the coming in of Christianity.\n\nIn the thirteenth century also the arch-enemy of the papacy, the Emperor\nFrederick II, showed his free-thinking tendencies by granting, from\ntime to time, permissions to dissect the human subject. In the centuries\nfollowing, sundry other monarchs timidly followed his example: thus John\nof Aragon, in 1391, gave to the University of Lerida the privilege of\ndissecting one dead criminal every three years.(319)\n\n\n     (319) For the promotion of medical science and practice, especially in\nthe thirteenth century, by the universities, see Baas, pp. 222-224.\n\n\nDuring the fifteenth century and the earlier years of the sixteenth the\nrevival of learning, the invention of printing, and the great voyages\nof discovery gave a new impulse to thought, and in this medical science\nshared: the old theological way of thinking was greatly questioned,\nand gave place in many quarters to a different way of looking at the\nuniverse.\n\nIn the sixteenth century Paracelsus appears--a great genius, doing much\nto develop medicine beyond the reach of sacred and scholastic tradition,\nthough still fettered by many superstitions. More and more, in spite of\ntheological dogmas, came a renewal of anatomical studies by dissection\nof the human subject. The practice of the old Alexandrian School was\nthus resumed. Mundinus, Professor of Medicine at Bologna early in the\nfourteenth century, dared use the human subject occasionally in his\nlectures; but finally came a far greater champion of scientific truth,\nAndreas Vesalius, founder of the modern science of anatomy. The battle\nwaged by this man is one of the glories of our race.\n\nFrom the outset Vesalius proved himself a master. In the search for real\nknowledge he risked the most terrible dangers, and especially the charge\nof sacrilege, founded upon the teachings of the Church for ages. As\nwe have seen, even such men in the early Church as Tertullian and St.\nAugustine held anatomy in abhorrence, and the decretal of Pope Boniface\nVIII was universally construed as forbidding all dissection, and as\nthreatening excommunication against those practising it. Through\nthis sacred conventionalism Vesalius broke without fear; despite\necclesiastical censure, great opposition in his own profession, and\npopular fury, he studied his science by the only method that could\ngive useful results. No peril daunted him. To secure material for his\ninvestigations, he haunted gibbets and charnel-houses, braving the fires\nof the Inquisition and the virus of the plague. First of all men\nhe began to place the science of human anatomy on its solid modern\nfoundations--on careful examination and observation of the human\nbody: this was his first great sin, and it was soon aggravated by one\nconsidered even greater.\n\nPerhaps the most unfortunate thing that has ever been done for\nChristianity is the tying it to forms of science which are doomed and\ngradually sinking. Just as, in the time of Roger Bacon, excellent men\ndevoted all their energies to binding Christianity to Aristotle; just\nas, in the time of Reuchlin and Erasmus, they insisted on binding\nChristianity to Thomas Aquinas; so, in the time of Vesalius, such men\nmade every effort to link Christianity to Galen. The cry has been the\nsame in all ages; it is the same which we hear in this age for curbing\nscientific studies: the cry for what is called \"sound learning.\" Whether\nstanding for Aristotle against Bacon, or for Aquinas against Erasmus, or\nfor Galen against Vesalius, the cry is always for \"sound learning\": the\nidea always has been that the older studies are \"SAFE.\"\n\nAt twenty-eight years of age Vesalius gave to the world his great\nwork on human anatomy. With it ended the old and began the new; its\nresearches, by their thoroughness, were a triumph of science; its\nillustrations, by their fidelity, were a triumph of art.\n\nTo shield himself, as far as possible, in the battle which he foresaw\nmust come, Vesalius dedicated the work to the Emperor Charles V, and in\nhis preface he argues for his method, and against the parrot repetitions\nof the mediaeval text-books; he also condemns the wretched anatomical\npreparations and specimens made by physicians who utterly refused to\nadvance beyond the ancient master. The parrot-like repeaters of Galen\ngave battle at once. After the manner of their time their first missiles\nwere epithets; and, the vast arsenal of these having been exhausted,\nthey began to use sharper weapons--weapons theologic.\n\nIn this case there were especial reasons why the theological authorities\nfelt called upon to intervene. First, there was the old idea prevailing\nin the Church that the dissection of the human body is forbidden to\nChristians: this was used with great force against Vesalius, but he at\nfirst gained a temporary victory; for, a conference of divines having\nbeen asked to decide whether dissection of the human body is sacrilege,\ngave a decision in the negative.\n\nThe reason was simple: the great Emperor Charles V had made Vesalius his\nphysician and could not spare him; but, on the accession of Philip II\nto the throne of Spain and the Netherlands, the whole scene changed.\nVesalius now complained that in Spain he could not obtain even a human\nskull for his anatomical investigations: the medical and theological\nreactionists had their way, and to all appearance they have, as a rule,\nhad it in Spain ever since. As late as the last years of the eighteenth\ncentury an observant English traveller found that there were no\ndissections before medical classes in the Spanish universities, and that\nthe doctrine of the circulation of the blood was still denied, more than\na century and a half after Sarpi and Harvey had proved it.\n\nAnother theological idea barred the path of Vesalius. Throughout\nthe Middle Ages it was believed that there exists in man a bone\nimponderable, incorruptible, incombustible--the necessary nucleus of\nthe resurrection body. Belief in a resurrection of the physical body,\ndespite St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, had been incorporated\ninto the formula evolved during the early Christian centuries and known\nas the Apostles' Creed, and was held throughout Christendom, \"always,\neverywhere, and by all.\" This hypothetical bone was therefore held\nin great veneration, and many anatomists sought to discover it; but\nVesalius, revealing so much else, did not find it. He contented himself\nwith saying that he left the question regarding the existence of such a\nbone to the theologians. He could not lie; he did not wish to fight the\nInquisition; and thus he fell under suspicion.\n\nThe strength of this theological point may be judged from the fact that\nno less eminent a surgeon than Riolan consulted the executioner to find\nout whether, when he burned a criminal, all the parts were consumed;\nand only then was the answer received which fatally undermined this\nsuperstition. Yet, in 1689 we find it still lingering in France,\nstimulating opposition in the Church to dissection. Even as late as the\neighteenth century, Bernouilli having shown that the living human body\nconstantly undergoes a series of changes, so that all its particles are\nrenewed in a given number of years, so much ill feeling was drawn upon\nhim, from theologians, who saw in this statement danger to the doctrine\nof the resurrection of the body, that for the sake of peace he struck\nout his argument on this subject from his collected works.(320)\n\n\n     (320) For permissions to dissect the human subject, given here and there\nduring the Middle Ages, see Roth's Andreas Vesalius, Berlin, 1892, pp.\n3, 13 et seq. For religious antipathies as a factor in the persecution\nof Vesalius, see the biographies by Boerhaave and Albinos, 1725;\nBurggraeve's Etudes, 1841; also Haeser, Kingsley, and the latest\nand most thorough of all, Roth, as above. Even Goethals, despite the\ntimidity natural to a city librarian in a town like Brussels, in which\nclerical power is strong and relentless, feels obliged to confess that\nthere was a certain admixture of religious hatred in the treatment\nof Vesalius. See his Notice Biographique sur Andre Vesale. For the\nresurrection bones, see Roth, as above, pp. 154, 155, and notes. For\nVesalius, see especially Portal, Hist. de l'Anatomie et de la Chirurgie,\nParis, 1770, tome i, p. 407. For neglect of dissection and opposition\nto Harvey's discovery in Spain, see Townsend's Travels, edition of 1792,\ncited in Buckle, History of Civilization in England, vol. ii, pp. 74,\n75. Also Henry Morley, in his Clement Marot, and Other Essays. For\nBernouilli and his trouble with the theologians, see Wolf, Biographien\nzur Culturgeschichte der Schweiz, vol. ii, p. 95. How different\nMundinus's practice of dissection was from that of Vesalius may be seen\nby Cuvier's careful statement that the entire number of dissections by\nthe former was three; the usual statement is that there were but two.\nSee Cuvier, Hist. des Sci. Nat., tome ii, p. 7; also Sprengel, Fredault,\nHallam, and Littre. Also Whewell, Hist. of the Inductive Sciences, vol.\niii, p. 328; also, for a very full statement regarding the agency of\nMundinus in the progress of Anatomy, see Portal, vol. i, pp. 209-216.\n\n\nStill other encroachments upon the theological view were made by the new\nschool of anatomists, and especially by Vesalius. During the Middle Ages\nthere had been developed various theological doctrines regarding the\nhuman body; these were based upon arguments showing what the body OUGHT\nTO BE, and naturally, when anatomical science showed what it IS, these\ndoctrines fell. An example of such popular theological reasoning is seen\nin a widespread belief of the twelfth century, that, during the year in\nwhich the cross of Christ was captured by Saladin, children, instead of\nhaving thirty or thirty-two teeth as before, had twenty or twenty-two.\nSo, too, in Vesalius's time another doctrine of this sort was dominant:\nit had long been held that Eve, having been made by the Almighty from a\nrib taken out of Adam's side, there must be one rib fewer on one side\nof every man than on the other. This creation of Eve was a favourite\nsubject with sculptors and painters, from Giotto, who carved it upon\nhis beautiful Campanile at Florence, to the illuminators of missals, and\neven to those who illustrated Bibles and religious books in the first\nyears after the invention of printing; but Vesalius and the anatomists\nwho followed him put an end among thoughtful men to this belief in the\nmissing rib, and in doing this dealt a blow at much else in the sacred\ntheory. Naturally, all these considerations brought the forces of\necclesiasticism against the innovators in anatomy.(321)\n\n\n     (321) As to the supposed change in the number of teeth, see the Gesta\nPhilippi Augusti Francorum Regis,... descripta a magistro Rigardo, 1219,\nedited by Father Francois Duchesne, in Histories Francorum Scriptores,\ntom. v, Paris, 1649, p. 24. For representations of Adam created by the\nAlmighty out of a pile of dust, and of Eve created from a rib of Adam,\nsee the earlier illustrations in the Nuremberg Chronicle. As to the\nrelation of anatomy to theology as regards to Adam's rib, see Roth, pp.\n154, 155.\n\n\nA new weapon was now forged: Vesalius was charged with dissecting a\nliving man, and, either from direct persecution, as the great majority\nof authors assert, or from indirect influences, as the recent apologists\nfor Philip II admit, he became a wanderer: on a pilgrimage to the Holy\nLand, apparently undertaken to atone for his sin, he was shipwrecked,\nand in the prime of his life and strength he was lost to the world.\n\nAnd yet not lost. In this century a great painter has again given him to\nus. By the magic of Hamann's pencil Vesalius again stands on earth,\nand we look once more into his cell. Its windows and doors, bolted and\nbarred within, betoken the storm of bigotry which rages without; the\ncrucifix, toward which he turns his eyes, symbolizes the spirit in which\nhe labours; the corpse of the plague-stricken beneath his hand ceases\nto be repulsive; his very soul seems to send forth rays from the canvas,\nwhich strengthen us for the good fight in this age.(322)\n\n\n     (322) The original painting of Vesalius at work in his cell, by Hamann,\nis now at Cornell University.\n\n\nHis death was hastened, if not caused, by men who conscientiously\nsupposed that he was injuring religion: his poor, blind foes aided in\ndestroying one of religion's greatest apostles. What was his influence\non religion? He substituted, for the repetition of worn-out theories,\na conscientious and reverent search into the works of the great Power\ngiving life to the universe; he substituted, for representations of the\nhuman structure pitiful and unreal, representations revealing truths\nmost helpful to the whole human race.\n\nThe death of this champion seems to have virtually ended the contest.\nLicenses to dissect soon began to be given by sundry popes to\nuniversities, and were renewed at intervals of from three to four years,\nuntil the Reformation set in motion trains of thought which did much to\nrelease science from this yoke.(323)\n\n\n     (323) For a curious example of weapons drawn from Galen and used against\nVesalius, see Lewes, Life of Goethe, p. 343, note. For proofs that I\nhave not overestimated Vesalius, see Portal, ubi supra. Portal speaks of\nhim as \"le genie le plus droit qu'eut l'Europe\"; and again, \"Vesale me\nparait un des plus grands hommes qui ait existe.\" For the charge\nthat anatomists dissected living men--against men of science before\nVesalius's time--see Littre's chapter on Anatomy. For the increased\nliberty given anatomy by the Reformation, see Roth's Vesalius, p. 33.\n\n\n\n\n\nX. THEOLOGICAL OPPOSITION TO INOCULATION, VACCINATION, AND THE USE OF\nANAESTHETICS.\n\nI hasten now to one of the most singular struggles of medical science\nduring modern times. Early in the last century Boyer presented\ninoculation as a preventive of smallpox in France, and thoughtful\nphysicians in England, inspired by Lady Montagu and Maitland, followed\nhis example. Ultra-conservatives in medicine took fright at once on both\nsides of the Channel, and theology was soon finding profound reasons\nagainst the new practice. The French theologians of the Sorbonne\nsolemnly condemned it; the English theologians were most loudly\nrepresented by the Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and\npublished a sermon entitled The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of\nInoculation. In this he declared that Job's distemper was probably\nconfluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil;\nthat diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that\nthe proposed attempt to prevent them is \"a diabolical operation.\"\nNot less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Delafaye, entitled\nInoculation an Indefensible Practice. This struggle went on for thirty\nyears. It is a pleasure to note some churchmen--and among them Madox,\nBishop of Worcester--giving battle on the side of right reason; but as\nlate as 1753 we have a noted rector at Canterbury denouncing inoculation\nfrom his pulpit in the primatial city, and many of his brethren\nfollowing his example.\n\nThe same opposition was vigorous in Protestant Scotland. A large body of\nministers joined in denouncing the new practice as \"flying in the face\nof Providence,\" and \"endeavouring to baffle a Divine judgment.\"\n\nOn our own side of the ocean, also, this question had to be fought out.\nAbout the year 1721 Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, a physician in Boston, made an\nexperiment in inoculation, one of his first subjects being his own son.\nHe at once encountered bitter hostility, so that the selectmen of the\ncity forbade him to repeat the experiment. Foremost among his opponents\nwas Dr. Douglas, a Scotch physician, supported by the medical profession\nand the newspapers. The violence of the opposing party knew no bounds;\nthey insisted that inoculation was \"poisoning,\" and they urged the\nauthorities to try Dr. Boylston for murder. Having thus settled his case\nfor this world, they proceeded to settle it for the next, insisting that\n\"for a man to infect a family in the morning with smallpox and to\npray to God in the evening against the disease is blasphemy\"; that the\nsmallpox is \"a judgment of God on the sins of the people,\" and that\n\"to avert it is but to provoke him more\"; that inoculation is \"an\nencroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound\nand smite.\" Among the mass of scriptural texts most remote from any\npossible bearing on the subject one was employed which was equally\ncogent against any use of healing means in any disease--the words of\nHosea: \"He hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will\nbind us up.\"\n\nSo bitter was this opposition that Dr. Boylston's life was in danger; it\nwas considered unsafe for him to be out of his house in the evening; a\nlighted grenade was even thrown into the house of Cotton Mather, who had\nfavoured the new practice, and had sheltered another clergyman who had\nsubmitted himself to it.\n\nTo the honour of the Puritan clergy of New England, it should be said\nthat many of them were Boylston's strongest supporters. Increase and\nCotton Mather had been among the first to move in favour of inoculation,\nthe latter having called Boylston's attention to it; and at the very\ncrisis of affairs six of the leading clergymen of Boston threw their\ninfluence on Boylston's side and shared the obloquy brought upon him.\nAlthough the gainsayers were not slow to fling into the faces of the\nMathers their action regarding witchcraft, urging that their credulity\nin that matter argued credulity in this, they persevered, and among the\nmany services rendered by the clergymen of New England to their country\nthis ought certainly to be remembered; for these men had to withstand,\nshoulder to shoulder with Boylston and Benjamin Franklin, the\nsame weapons which were hurled at the supporters of inoculation in\nEurope--charges of \"unfaithfulness to the revealed law of God.\"\n\nThe facts were soon very strong against the gainsayers: within a year\nor two after the first experiment nearly three hundred persons had been\ninoculated by Boylston in Boston and neighbouring towns, and out of\nthese only six had died; whereas, during the same period, out of nearly\nsix thousand persons who had taken smallpox naturally, and had received\nonly the usual medical treatment, nearly one thousand had died. Yet even\nhere the gainsayers did not despair, and, when obliged to confess the\nsuccess of inoculation, they simply fell back upon a new argument,\nand answered: \"It was good that Satan should be dispossessed of his\nhabitation which he had taken up in men in our Lord's day, but it was\nnot lawful that the children of the Pharisees should cast him out by the\nhelp of Beelzebub. We must always have an eye to the matter of what we\ndo as well as the result, if we intend to keep a good conscience toward\nGod.\" But the facts were too strong; the new practice made its way in\nthe New World as in the Old, though bitter opposition continued, and in\nno small degree on vague scriptural grounds, for more than twenty years\nlonger.(324)\n\n\n     (324) For the general subject, see Sprengel, Histoire de la Medecine,\nvol. vi, pp. 39-80. For the opposition of the Paris faculty of Theology\nto inoculation, see the Journal de Barbier, vol. vi, p. 294; also the\nCorrespondance de Grimm et Diderot, vol. iii, pp. 259 et seq. For bitter\ndenunciations of inoculation by the English clergy, and for the noble\nstand against them by Madox, see Baron, Life of Jenner, vol. i, pp. 231,\n232, and vol. ii, pp. 39, 40. For the strenuous opposition of the same\nclergy, see Weld, History of the Royal Society, vol. i, p. 464, note;\nalso, for its comical side, see Nichol's Literary Illustrations, vol.\nv, p. 800. For the same matter in Scotland, see Lecky's History of the\nEighteenth Century, vol. ii, p. 83. For New England, see Green, History\nof Medicine in Massachusetts, Boston, 1881, pp. 58 et seq; also chapter\nx of the Memorial History of Boston, by the same author and O. W.\nHolmes. For a letter of Dr. Franklin's, see Massachusetts Historical\nCollections, second series, vol. vii, p. 17. Several most curious\npublications issued during the heat of the inoculation controversy have\nbeen kindly placed in my hands by the librarians of Harvard College and\nof the Massachusetts Historical Society, among them A Reply to Increase\nMather, by John Williams, Boston, printed by J. Franklin, 1721, from\nwhich the above scriptural arguments are cited. For the terrible\nvirulence of the smallpox in New England up to the introduction of the\ninoculation, see McMaster, History of the People of the United States,\nfirst edition, vol. i, p. 30.\n\n\nThe steady evolution of scientific medicine brings us next to Jenner's\ndiscovery of vaccination. Here, too, sundry vague survivals of\ntheological ideas caused many of the clergy to side with retrograde\nphysicians. Perhaps the most virulent of Jenner's enemies was one of his\nprofessional brethren, Dr. Moseley, who placed on the title-page of his\nbook, Lues Bovilla, the motto, referring to Jenner and his followers,\n\"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do\": this book of\nDr. Moseley was especially indorsed by the Bishop of Dromore. In 1798\nan Anti-vaccination Society was formed by physicians and clergymen,\nwho called on the people of Boston to suppress vaccination, as \"bidding\ndefiance to Heaven itself, even to the will of God,\" and declared that\n\"the law of God prohibits the practice.\" As late as 1803 the Rev. Dr.\nRamsden thundered against vaccination in a sermon before the University\nof Cambridge, mingling texts of Scripture with calumnies against\nJenner; but Plumptre and the Rev. Rowland Hill in England, Waterhouse in\nAmerica, Thouret in France, Sacco in Italy, and a host of other good\nmen and true, pressed forward, and at last science, humanity, and right\nreason gained the victory. Most striking results quickly followed.\nThe diminution in the number of deaths from the terrible scourge was\namazing. In Berlin, during the eight years following 1783, over four\nthousand children died of the smallpox; while during the eight years\nfollowing 1814, after vaccination had been largely adopted, out of a\nlarger number of deaths there were but five hundred and thirty-five\nfrom this disease. In Wurtemberg, during the twenty-four years following\n1772, one in thirteen of all the children died of smallpox, while\nduring the eleven years after 1822 there died of it only one in sixteen\nhundred. In Copenhagen, during twelve years before the introduction of\nvaccination, fifty-five hundred persons died of smallpox, and during the\nsixteen years after its introduction only one hundred and fifty-eight\npersons died of it throughout all Denmark. In Vienna, where the average\nyearly mortality from this disease had been over eight hundred, it was\nsteadily and rapidly reduced, until in 1803 it had fallen to less than\nthirty; and in London, formerly so afflicted by this scourge, out of\nall her inhabitants there died of it in 1890 but one. As to the world\nat large, the result is summed up by one of the most honoured English\nphysicians of our time, in the declaration that \"Jenner has saved, is\nnow saving, and will continue to save in all coming ages, more lives in\none generation than were destroyed in all the wars of Napoleon.\"\n\nIt will have been noticed by those who have read this history thus far\nthat the record of the Church generally was far more honourable in this\nstruggle than in many which preceded it: the reason is not difficult to\nfind; the decline of theology enured to the advantage of religion, and\nreligion gave powerful aid to science.\n\nYet there have remained some survivals both in Protestantism and in\nCatholicism which may be regarded with curiosity. A small body of\nperversely ingenious minds in the medical profession in England have\nfound a few ardent allies among the less intellectual clergy. The Rev.\nMr. Rothery and the Rev. Mr. Allen, of the Primitive Methodists, have\nfor sundry vague theological reasons especially distinguished themselves\nby opposition to compulsory vaccination; but it is only just to say\nthat the great body of the English clergy have for a long time taken the\nbetter view.\n\nFar more painful has been the recent history of the other great branch\nof the Christian Church--a history developed where it might have been\nleast expected: the recent annals of the world hardly present a more\nstriking antithesis between Religion and Theology.\n\nOn the religious side few things in the history of the Roman Church have\nbeen more beautiful than the conduct of its clergy in Canada during\nthe great outbreak of ship-fever among immigrants at Montreal about the\nmiddle of the present century. Day and night the Catholic priesthood of\nthat city ministered fearlessly to those victims of sanitary ignorance;\nfear of suffering and death could not drive these ministers from their\nwork; they laid down their lives cheerfully while carrying comfort to\nthe poorest and most ignorant of our kind: such was the record of their\nreligion. But in 1885 a record was made by their theology. In that year\nthe smallpox broke out with great virulence in Montreal. The Protestant\npopulation escaped almost entirely by vaccination; but multitudes of\ntheir Catholic fellow-citizens, under some vague survival of the old\northodox ideas, refused vaccination; and suffered fearfully. When at\nlast the plague became so serious that travel and trade fell off greatly\nand quarantine began to be established in neighbouring cities, an effort\nwas made to enforce compulsory vaccination. The result was, that large\nnumbers of the Catholic working population resisted and even threatened\nbloodshed. The clergy at first tolerated and even encouraged this\nconduct: the Abbe Filiatrault, priest of St. James's Church, declared in\na sermon that, \"if we are afflicted with smallpox, it is because we had\na carnival last winter, feasting the flesh, which has offended the Lord;\nit is to punish our pride that God has sent us smallpox.\" The clerical\npress went further: the Etendard exhorted the faithful to take up arms\nrather than submit to vaccination, and at least one of the secular\npapers was forced to pander to the same sentiment. The Board of Health\nstruggled against this superstition, and addressed a circular to the\nCatholic clergy, imploring them to recommend vaccination; but, though\ntwo or three complied with this request, the great majority were either\nsilent or openly hostile. The Oblate Fathers, whose church was situated\nin the very heart of the infected district, continued to denounce\nvaccination; the faithful were exhorted to rely on devotional exercises\nof various sorts; under the sanction of the hierarchy a great procession\nwas ordered with a solemn appeal to the Virgin, and the use of the\nrosary was carefully specified.\n\nMeantime, the disease, which had nearly died out among the Protestants,\nraged with ever-increasing virulence among the Catholics; and, the truth\nbecoming more and more clear, even to the most devout, proper measures\nwere at last enforced and the plague was stayed, though not until there\nhad been a fearful waste of life among these simple-hearted believers,\nand germs of scepticism planted in the hearts of their children which\nwill bear fruit for generations to come.(325)\n\n\n     (325) For the opposition of concientious men to vaccination in England,\nsee Baron, Life of Jenner, as above; also vol. ii, p. 43; also Dun's\nLife of Simpson, London, 1873, pp. 248, 249; also Works of Sir J. Y.\nSimpson, vol. ii. For a multitude of statistics ahowing the diminution\nof smallpox after the introduction of vaccination, see Russell, p.\n380. For the striking record in London for 1890, see an article in the\nEdinburgh review for January, 1891. The general statement referred to\nwas made in a speech some years since by Sir Spencer Wells. For recent\nscattered cases of feeble opposition to vaccination by Protestant\nministers, see William White, The Great Delusion, London, 1885, passim.\nFor opposition of the Roman Catholic clergy and peasantry in Canada\nto vaccination during the smallpox plague of 1885, see the English,\nCanadian, and American newspapers, but especially the very temperate and\naccurate correspondence in the New York Evening Post during September\nand October of that year.\n\n\nAnother class of cases in which the theologic spirit has allied itself\nwith the retrograde party in medical science is found in the history of\ncertain remedial agents; and first may be named cocaine. As early as the\nmiddle of the sixteenth century the value of coca had been discovered\nin South America; the natives of Peru prized it highly, and two eminent\nJesuits, Joseph Acosta and Antonio Julian, were converted to this view.\nBut the conservative spirit in the Church was too strong; in 1567 the\nSecond Council of Lima, consisting of bishops from all parts of South\nAmerica, condemned it, and two years later came a royal decree declaring\nthat \"the notions entertained by the natives regarding it are an\nillusion of the devil.\"\n\nAs a pendant to this singular mistake on the part of the older Church\ncame another committed by many Protestants. In the early years of the\nseventeenth century the Jesuit missionaries in South America learned\nfrom the natives the value of the so-called Peruvian bark in the\ntreatment of ague; and in 1638, the Countess of Cinchon, Regent of Peru,\nhaving derived great benefit from the new remedy, it was introduced into\nEurope. Although its alkaloid, quinine, is perhaps the nearest approach\nto a medical specific, and has diminished the death rate in certain\nregions to an amazing extent, its introduction was bitterly opposed\nby many conservative members of the medical profession, and in this\nopposition large numbers of ultra-Protestants joined, out of hostility\nto the Roman Church. In the heat of sectarian feeling the new remedy\nwas stigmatized as \"an invention of the devil\"; and so strong was this\nopposition that it was not introduced into England until 1653, and even\nthen its use was long held back, owing mainly to anti-Catholic feeling.\n\nWhat the theological method on the ultra-Protestant side could do to\nhelp the world at this very time is seen in the fact that, while this\nstruggle was going on, Hoffmann was attempting to give a scientific\ntheory of the action of the devil in causing Job's boils. This effort\nat a quasi-scientific explanation which should satisfy the theological\nspirit, comical as it at first seems, is really worthy of serious\nnotice, because it must be considered as the beginning of that\ninevitable effort at compromise which we see in the history of every\nscience when it begins to appear triumphant.(326)\n\n\n     (326) For the opposition of the South American Church authorities to\nthe introduction of coca, etc., see Martindale, Coca, Cocaine, and its\nSalts, London, 1886, p. 7. As to theological and sectarian resistance to\nquinine, see Russell, pp. 194, 253; also Eccles; also Meryon, History of\nMedicine, London, 1861, vol. i, p. 74, note. For the great decrease in\ndeaths by fever after the use of Peruvian bark began, see statistical\ntables given in Russell, p. 252; and for Hoffmann's attempt at\ncompromise, ibid., p. 294.\n\n\nBut I pass to a typical conflict in our days, and in a Protestant\ncountry. In 1847, James Young Simpson, a Scotch physician, who afterward\nrose to the highest eminence in his profession, having advocated the use\nof anaesthetics in obstetrical cases, was immediately met by a storm\nof opposition. This hostility flowed from an ancient and time-honoured\nbelief in Scotland. As far back as the year 1591, Eufame Macalyane, a\nlady of rank, being charged with seeking the aid of Agnes Sampson for\nthe relief of pain at the time of the birth of her two sons, was burned\nalive on the Castle Hill of Edinburgh; and this old theological view\npersisted even to the middle of the nineteenth century. From pulpit\nafter pulpit Simpson's use of chloroform was denounced as impious\nand contrary to Holy Writ; texts were cited abundantly, the ordinary\ndeclaration being that to use chloroform was \"to avoid one part of\nthe primeval curse on woman.\" Simpson wrote pamphlet after pamphlet to\ndefend the blessing which he brought into use; but he seemed about to be\novercome, when he seized a new weapon, probably the most absurd by\nwhich a great cause was ever won: \"My opponents forget,\" he said, \"the\ntwenty-first verse of the second chapter of Genesis; it is the record of\nthe first surgical operation ever performed, and that text proves that\nthe Maker of the universe, before he took the rib from Adam's side for\nthe creation of Eve, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.\" This was\na stunning blow, but it did not entirely kill the opposition; they had\nstrength left to maintain that the \"deep sleep of Adam took place before\nthe introduction of pain into the world--in a state of innocence.\"\nBut now a new champion intervened--Thomas Chalmers: with a few pungent\narguments from his pulpit he scattered the enemy forever, and the\ngreatest battle of science against suffering was won. This victory was\nwon not less for religion. Wisely did those who raised the monument\nat Boston to one of the discoverers of anaesthetics inscribe upon its\npedestal the words from our sacred text, \"This also cometh forth from\nthe Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in\nworking.\"(327)\n\n\n     (327) For the case of Eufame Macalyane, se Dalyell, Darker Superstitions\nof Scotland, pp. 130, 133. For the contest of Simpson with Scotch\necclesiatical authorities, see Duns, Life of Sir J. Y. Simpson, London,\n1873, pp. 215-222, and 256-260.\n\n\n\n\n\nXI. FINAL BREAKING AWAY OF THE THEOLOGICAL THEORY IN MEDICINE.\n\n\nWhile this development of history was going on, the central idea on\nwhich the whole theologic view rested--the idea of diseases as resulting\nfrom the wrath of God or malice of Satan--was steadily weakened;\nand, out of the many things which show this, one may be selected as\nindicating the drift of thought among theologians themselves.\n\nToward the end of the eighteenth century the most eminent divines of\nthe American branch of the Anglican Church framed their Book of Common\nPrayer. Abounding as it does in evidences of their wisdom and piety, few\nthings are more noteworthy than a change made in the exhortation to the\nfaithful to present themselves at the communion. While, in the old form\nlaid down in the English Prayer Book, the minister was required to warn\nhis flock not \"to kindle God's wrath\" or \"provoke him to plague us with\ndivers diseases and sundry kinds of death,\" from the American form all\nthis and more of similar import in various services was left out.\n\nSince that day progress in medical science has been rapid indeed, and at\nno period more so than during the last half of the nineteenth century.\n\nThe theological view of disease has steadily faded, and the theological\nhold upon medical education has been almost entirely relaxed. In three\ngreat fields, especially, discoveries have been made which have done\nmuch to disperse the atmosphere of miracle. First, there has come\nknowledge regarding the relation between imagination and medicine,\nwhich, though still defective, is of great importance. This relation has\nbeen noted during the whole history of the science. When the soldiers\nof the Prince of Orange, at the siege of Breda in 1625, were dying of\nscurvy by scores, he sent to the physicians \"two or three small vials\nfilled with a decoction of camomile, wormwood, and camphor, gave out\nthat it was a very rare and precious medicine--a medicine of such virtue\nthat two or three drops sufficed to impregnate a gallon of water,\nand that it had been obtained from the East with great difficulty and\ndanger.\" This statement, made with much solemnity, deeply impressed the\nsoldiers; they took the medicine eagerly, and great numbers recovered\nrapidly. Again, two centuries later, young Humphry Davy, being employed\nto apply the bulb of the thermometer to the tongues of certain patients\nat Bristol after they had inhaled various gases as remedies for\ndisease, and finding that the patients supposed this application of the\nthermometer-bulb was the cure, finally wrought cures by this application\nalone, without any use of the gases whatever. Innumerable cases of this\nsort have thrown a flood of light upon such cures as those wrought by\nPrince Hohenlohe, by the \"metallic tractors,\" and by a multitude of\nother agencies temporarily in vogue, but, above all, upon the miraculous\ncures which in past ages have been so frequent and of which a few\nsurvive.\n\nThe second department is that of hypnotism. Within the last half-century\nmany scattered indications have been collected and supplemented by\nthoughtful, patient investigators of genius, and especially by Braid in\nEngland and Charcot in France. Here, too, great inroads have been made\nupon the province hitherto sacred to miracle, and in 1888 the cathedral\npreacher, Steigenberger, of Augsburg, sounded an alarm. He declared his\nfears \"lest accredited Church miracles lose their hold upon the public,\"\ndenounced hypnotism as a doctrine of demons, and ended with the singular\nargument that, inasmuch as hypnotism is avowedly incapable of explaining\nall the wonders of history, it is idle to consider it at all. But\ninvestigations in hypnotism still go on, and may do much in the\ntwentieth century to carry the world yet further from the realm of the\nmiraculous.\n\nIn a third field science has won a striking series of victories.\nBacteriology, beginning in the researches of Leeuwenhoek in the\nseventeenth century, continued by O. F. Muller in the eighteenth, and\ndeveloped or applied with wonderful skill by Ehrenberg, Cohn, Lister,\nPasteur, Koch, Billings, Bering, and their compeers in the nineteenth,\nhas explained the origin and proposed the prevention or cure of various\ndiseases widely prevailing, which until recently have been generally\nheld to be \"inscrutable providences.\" Finally, the closer study of\npsychology, especially in its relations to folklore, has revealed\nprocesses involved in the development of myths and legends: the\nphenomena of \"expectant attention,\" the tendency to marvel-mongering,\nand the feeling of \"joy in believing.\"\n\nIn summing up the history of this long struggle between science and\ntheology, two main facts are to be noted: First, that in proportion as\nthe world approached the \"ages of faith\" it receded from ascertained\ntruth, and in proportion as the world has receded from the \"ages\nof faith\" it has approached ascertained truth; secondly, that, in\nproportion as the grasp of theology Upon education tightened, medicine\ndeclined, and in proportion as that grasp has relaxed, medicine has been\ndeveloped.\n\nThe world is hardly beyond the beginning of medical discoveries, yet\nthey have already taken from theology what was formerly its strongest\nprovince--sweeping away from this vast field of human effort that belief\nin miracles which for more than twenty centuries has been the main\nstumbling-block in the path of medicine; and in doing this they have\ncleared higher paths not only for science, but for religion.(328)\n\n\n     (328) For the rescue of medical education from the control of theology,\nespecially in France, see Rambaud, La Civilisation Contemporaine en\nFrance, pp. 682, 683. For miraculous cures wrought by imagination,\nsee Tuke, Influence of Mind on Body, vol. ii. For opposition to the\nscientific study of hypnotism, see Hypnotismus und Wunder: ein Vortrag,\nmit Weiterungen, von Max Steigenberger, Domprediger, Augsburg, 1888,\nreviewed in Science, Feb. 15, 1889, p. 127. For a recent statement\nregarding the development of studies in hypnotism, see Liegeois, De\nla Suggestion et du Somnambulisme dans leurs rapports avec la\nJurisprudence, Paris, 1889, chap. ii. As to joy in believing and\nexaggerating marvels, see in the London Graphic for January 2, 1892,\nan account of Hindu jugglers by \"Professor\" Hofmann, himself an expert\nconjurer. He shows that the Hindu performances have been grossly and\npersistently exaggerated in the accounts of travellers; that they are\neasily seen through, and greatly inferior to the jugglers' tricks seen\nevery day in European capitals. The eminent Prof. De Gubernatis, who\nalso had witnessed the Hindu performances, assured the present writer\nthat the current accounts of them were monstrously exaggerated. As\nto the miraculous in general, the famous Essay of Hume holds a most\nimportant place in the older literature of the subject; but, for perhaps\nthe most remarkable of all discussions of it, see Conyers Middleton, D.\nD., A Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers which are supposed to have\nsubsisted in the Christian Church, London, 1749. For probably the most\njudicially fair discussion, see Lecky, History of European Morals, vol.\ni, chap. iii; also his Rationalism in Europe, vol. i, chaps. i and ii;\nand for perhaps the boldest and most suggestive of recent statements,\nsee Max Muller, Physical Religion, being the Gifford Lectures before the\nUniversity of Glasgow for 1890, London, 1891, lecture xiv. See also, for\nvery cogent statements and arguments, Matthew Arnold's Literature\nand Dogma, especially chap. v, and, for a recent utterance of great\nclearness and force, Prof. Osler's Address before the Johns Hopkins\nUniversity, given in Science for March 27, 1891.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV. FROM FETICH TO HYGIENE.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW OF EPIDEMICS AND SANITATION.\n\n\nA very striking feature in recorded history has been the recurrence\nof great pestilences. Various indications in ancient times show their\nfrequency, while the famous description of the plague of Athens given\nby Thucydides, and the discussion of it by Lucretius, exemplify their\nseverity. In the Middle Ages they raged from time to time throughout\nEurope: such plagues as the Black Death and the sweating sickness swept\noff vast multitudes, the best authorities estimating that of the former,\nat the middle of the fourteenth century, more than half the population\nof England died, and that twenty-five millions of people perished in\nvarious parts of Europe. In 1552 sixty-seven thousand patients died of\nthe plague at Paris alone, and in 1580 more than twenty thousand. The\ngreat plague in England and other parts of Europe in the seventeenth\ncentury was also fearful, and that which swept the south of Europe in\nthe early part of the eighteenth century, as well as the invasions by\nthe cholera at various times during the nineteenth, while less\nterrible than those of former years, have left a deep impress upon the\nimaginations of men.\n\nFrom the earliest records we find such pestilences attributed to the\nwrath or malice of unseen powers. This had been the prevailing view even\nin the most cultured ages before the establishment of Christianity: in\nGreece and Rome especially, plagues of various sorts were attributed\nto the wrath of the gods; in Judea, the scriptural records of various\nplagues sent upon the earth by the Divine fiat as a punishment for sin\nshow the continuance of this mode of thought. Among many examples and\nintimations of this in our sacred literature, we have the epidemic which\ncarried off fourteen thousand seven hundred of the children of Israel,\nand which was only stayed by the prayers and offerings of Aaron, the\nhigh priest; the destruction of seventy thousand men in the pestilence\nby which King David was punished for the numbering of Israel, and\nwhich was only stopped when the wrath of Jahveh was averted by\nburnt-offerings; the plague threatened by the prophet Zechariah, and\nthat delineated in the Apocalypse. From these sources this current of\nideas was poured into the early Christian Church, and hence it has been\nthat during nearly twenty centuries since the rise of Christianity,\nand down to a period within living memory, at the appearance of\nany pestilence the Church authorities, instead of devising sanitary\nmeasures, have very generally preached the necessity of immediate\natonement for offences against the Almighty.\n\nThis view of the early Church was enriched greatly by a new development\nof theological thought regarding the powers of Satan and evil angels,\nthe declaration of St. Paul that the gods of antiquity were devils being\ncited as its sufficient warrant.(329)\n\n\n     (329) For plague during the Peloponnesian war, see Thucydides, vol. ii,\npp.47-55, and vol. iii, p. 87. For a general statement regarding this\nand other plagues in ancient times, see Lucretius, vol. vi, pp. 1090 et\nseq.; and for a translation, see vol. i, p. 179, in Munro's edition\nof 1886. For early views of sanitary science in Greece and Rome, see\nForster's Inquiry, in The Pamphleteer, vol. xxiv, p. 404. For the\nGreek view of the interference of the gods in disease, especially in\npestilence, see Grote's History of Greece, vol. i, pp. 251, 485,\nand vol. vi, p. 213; see also Herodotus, lib. iii, c. xxxviii, and\nelsewhere. For the Hebrew view of the same interference by the Almighty,\nsee especially Numbers xi, 4-34; also xvi, 49; I Samuel xxiv; also Psalm\ncvi, 29; also the well-known texts in Zechariah and Revelation. For St.\nPaul's declaration that the gods of the heathen are devils, see I Cor.\nx, 20. As to the earlier origin of the plague in Egypt, see Haeser,\n'Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Medicin und der epidemischen Krankheiten,\nJena, 1875-'82, vol. iii, pp. 15 et seq.\n\n\nMoreover, comets, falling stars, and earthquakes were thought, upon\nscriptural authority, to be \"signs and wonders\"--evidences of the\nDivine wrath, heralds of fearful visitations; and this belief, acting\npowerfully upon the minds of millions, did much to create a panic-terror\nsure to increase epidemic disease wherever it broke forth.\n\nThe main cause of this immense sacrifice of life is now known to have\nbeen the want of hygienic precaution, both in the Eastern centres, where\nvarious plagues were developed, and in the European towns through which\nthey spread. And here certain theological reasonings came in to resist\nthe evolution of a proper sanitary theory. Out of the Orient had been\npoured into the thinking of western Europe the theological idea that the\nabasement of man adds to the glory of God; that indignity to the body\nmay secure salvation to the soul; hence, that cleanliness betokens pride\nand filthiness humility. Living in filth was regarded by great numbers\nof holy men, who set an example to the Church and to society, as an\nevidence of sanctity. St. Jerome and the Breviary of the Roman Church\ndwell with unction on the fact that St. Hilarion lived his whole life\nlong in utter physical uncleanliness; St. Athanasius glorifies St.\nAnthony because he had never washed his feet; St. Abraham's most\nstriking evidence of holiness was that for fifty years he washed neither\nhis hands nor his feet; St. Sylvia never washed any part of her body\nsave her fingers; St. Euphraxia belonged to a convent in which the nuns\nreligiously abstained from bathing. St. Mary of Egypt was eminent for\nfilthiness; St. Simnon Stylites was in this respect unspeakable--the\nleast that can be said is, that he lived in ordure and stench\nintolerable to his visitors. The Lives of the Saints dwell with\ncomplacency on the statement that, when sundry Eastern monks showed a\ndisposition to wash themselves, the Almighty manifested his displeasure\nby drying up a neighbouring stream until the bath which it had supplied\nwas destroyed.\n\nThe religious world was far indeed from the inspired utterance\nattributed to John Wesley, that \"cleanliness is near akin to godliness.\"\nFor century after century the idea prevailed that filthiness was akin to\nholiness; and, while we may well believe that the devotion of the clergy\nto the sick was one cause why, during the greater plagues, they lost so\nlarge a proportion of their numbers, we can not escape the conclusion\nthat their want of cleanliness had much to do with it. In France, during\nthe fourteenth century, Guy de Chauliac, the great physician of\nhis time, noted particularly that certain Carmelite monks suffered\nespecially from pestilence, and that they were especially filthy. During\nthe Black Death no less than nine hundred Carthusian monks fell victims\nin one group of buildings.\n\nNaturally, such an example set by the venerated leaders of thought\nexercised great influence throughout society, and all the more because\nit justified the carelessness and sloth to which ordinary humanity is\nprone. In the principal towns of Europe, as well as in the country at\nlarge, down to a recent period, the most ordinary sanitary precautions\nwere neglected, and pestilences continued to be attributed to the\nwrath of God or the malice of Satan. As to the wrath of God, a new and\npowerful impulse was given to this belief in the Church toward the\nend of the sixth century by St. Gregory the Great. In 590, when he was\nelected Pope, the city of Rome was suffering from a dreadful pestilence:\nthe people were dying by thousands; out of one procession imploring the\nmercy of Heaven no less than eighty persons died within an hour:\nwhat the heathen in an earlier epoch had attributed to Apollo was now\nattributed to Jehovah, and chroniclers tell us that fiery darts were\nseen flung from heaven into the devoted city. But finally, in the midst\nof all this horror, Gregory, at the head of a penitential procession,\nsaw hovering over the mausoleum of Hadrian the figure of the archangel\nMichael, who was just sheathing a flaming sword, while three angels\nwere heard chanting the Regina Coeli. The legend continues that the Pope\nimmediately broke forth into hallelujahs for this sign that the plague\nwas stayed, and, as it shortly afterward became less severe, a chapel\nwas built at the summit of the mausoleum and dedicated to St. Michael;\nstill later, above the whole was erected the colossal statue of the\narchangel sheathing his sword, which still stands to perpetuate the\nlegend. Thus the greatest of Rome's ancient funeral monuments was made\nto bear testimony to this medieval belief; the mausoleum of Hadrian\nbecame the castle of St. Angelo. A legend like this, claiming to\ndate from the greatest of the early popes, and vouched for by such an\nimposing monument, had undoubtedly a marked effect upon the dominant\ntheology throughout Europe, which was constantly developing a great body\nof thought regarding the agencies by which the Divine wrath might be\naverted.\n\nFirst among these agencies, naturally, were evidences of devotion,\nespecially gifts of land, money, or privileges to churches, monasteries,\nand shrines--the seats of fetiches which it was supposed had wrought\ncures or might work them. The whole evolution of modern history, not\nonly ecclesiastical but civil, has been largely affected by the wealth\ntransferred to the clergy at such periods. It was noted that in the\nfourteenth century, after the great plague, the Black Death, had passed,\nan immensely increased proportion of the landed and personal property of\nevery European country was in the hands of the Church. Well did a great\necclesiastic remark that \"pestilences are the harvests of the ministers\nof God.\"(330)\n\n\n     (330) For triumphant mention of St. Hilarion's filth, see the Roman\nBreviary for October 21st; and for details, see S. Hieronymus, Vita S.\nHilarionis Eremitae, in Migne, Patrologia, vol. xxiii. For Athanasius's\nreference to St. Anthony's filth, see works of St. Athanasius in the\nNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. iv, p. 209. For the\nfilthiness of the other saints named, see citations from the Lives of\nthe Saints, in Lecky's History of European Morals, vol. ii, pp. 117,\n118. For Guy de Chauliac's observation on the filthiness of Carmelite\nmonks and their great losses by pestilence, see Meryon, History of\nMedicine, vol. i, p. 257. For the mortality among the Carthusian monks\nin time of plague, see Mrs. Lecky's very interesting Visit to the Grand\nChartreuse, in The Nineteenth Century for March, 1891. For the plague\nat Rome in 590, the legend regarding the fiery darts, mentioned by Pope\nGregory himself, and that of the castle of St. Angelo, see Gregorovius,\nGeschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, vol. ii, pp. 26-35; also Story,\nCastle of St. Angelo, etc., chap. ii. For the remark that \"pestilences\nare the harvest of the ministers of God,\" see reference to Charlevoix,\nin Southey, History of Brazil, vol. ii, p. 254, cited in Buckle, vol. i,\np. 130, note.\n\n\nOther modes of propitiating the higher powers were penitential\nprocessions, the parading of images of the Virgin or of saints through\nplague-stricken towns, and fetiches innumerable. Very noted in the\nthirteenth and fourteenth centuries were the processions of the\nflagellants, trooping through various parts of Europe, scourging their\nnaked bodies, shrieking the penitential psalms, and often running from\nwild excesses of devotion to the maddest orgies.\n\nSometimes, too, plagues were attributed to the wrath of lesser heavenly\npowers. Just as, in former times, the fury of \"far-darting Apollo\" was\nfelt when his name was not respectfully treated by mortals, so, in 1680,\nthe Church authorities at Rome discovered that the plague then raging\nresulted from the anger of St. Sebastian because no monument had been\nerected to him. Such a monument was therefore placed in the Church of\nSt. Peter ad Vincula, and the plague ceased.\n\nSo much for the endeavour to avert the wrath of the heavenly powers.\nOn the other hand, theological reasoning no less subtle was used in\nthwarting the malice of Satan. This idea, too, came from far. In the\nsacred books of India and Persia, as well as in our own, we find the\nsame theory of disease, leading to similar means of cure. Perhaps\nthe most astounding among Christian survivals of this theory and its\nresultant practices was seen during the plague at Rome in 1522. In that\nyear, at that centre of divine illumination, certain people, having\nreasoned upon the matter, came to the conclusion that this great scourge\nwas the result of Satanic malice; and, in view of St. Paul's declaration\nthat the ancient gods were devils, and of the theory that the ancient\ngods of Rome were the devils who had the most reason to punish that city\nfor their dethronement, and that the great amphitheatre was the chosen\nhaunt of these demon gods, an ox decorated with garlands, after the\nancient heathen manner, was taken in procession to the Colosseum and\nsolemnly sacrificed. Even this proved vain, and the Church authorities\nthen ordered expiatory processions and ceremonies to propitiate the\nAlmighty, the Virgin, and the saints, who had been offended by this\ntemporary effort to bribe their enemies.\n\nBut this sort of theological reasoning developed an idea far more\ndisastrous, and this was that Satan, in causing pestilences, used as his\nemissaries especially Jews and witches. The proof of this belief in\nthe case of the Jews was seen in the fact that they escaped with a\nless percentage of disease than did the Christians in the great plague\nperiods. This was doubtless due in some measure to their remarkable\nsanitary system, which had probably originated thousands of years\nbefore in Egypt, and had been handed down through Jewish lawgivers and\nstatesmen. Certainly they observed more careful sanitary rules and\nmore constant abstinence from dangerous foods than was usual among\nChristians; but the public at large could not understand so simple a\ncause, and jumped to the conclusion that their immunity resulted\nfrom protection by Satan, and that this protection was repaid and the\npestilence caused by their wholesale poisoning of Christians. As a\nresult of this mode of thought, attempts were made in all parts of\nEurope to propitiate the Almighty, to thwart Satan, and to stop the\nplague by torturing and murdering the Jews. Throughout Europe during\ngreat pestilences we hear of extensive burnings of this devoted people.\nIn Bavaria, at the time of the Black Death, it is computed that twelve\nthousand Jews thus perished; in the small town of Erfurt the number is\nsaid to have been three thousand; in Strasburg, the Rue Brulee remains\nas a monument to the two thousand Jews burned there for poisoning the\nwells and causing the plague of 1348; at the royal castle of Chinon,\nnear Tours, an immense trench was dug, filled with blazing wood, and\nin a single day one hundred and sixty Jews were burned. Everywhere in\ncontinental Europe this mad persecution went on; but it is a pleasure\nto say that one great churchman, Pope Clement VI, stood against this\npopular unreason, and, so far as he could bring his influence to bear on\nthe maddened populace, exercised it in favour of mercy to these supposed\nenemies of the Almighty.(331)\n\n\n     (331) For an early conception in India of the Divinity acting through\nmedicine, see The Bhagavadgita, translated by Telang, p. 82, in Max\nMuller's Sacred Books of the East. For the necessity of religious\nmeans of securing knowledge of medicine, see the Anugita, translated by\nTelang, in Max Muller's Sacred Books of the East, p. 388. For ancient\nPersian ideas of sickness as sent by the spirit of evil and to be cured\nby spells, but not excluding medicine and surgery, and for sickness\ngenerally as caused by the evil principle in demons, see the\nZend-Avesta, Darmesteter's translation, introduction, passim, but\nespecially p. xciii. For diseases wrought by witchcraft, see the same,\npp. 230, 293. On the preferences of spells in healing over medicine and\nsurgery, see Zend-Avesta, vol. i, pp. 85, 86. For healing by magic in\nancient Greece, see, e. g., the cure of Ulysses in the Odyssey, \"They\nstopped the black blood by a spell\" (Odyssey, xxix, 457). For medicine\nin Egypt as partly priestly and partly in the hands of physicians, see\nRawlinson's Herodotus, vol. ii, p. 136, note. For ideas of curing of\ndisease by expulsion of demons still surviving among various tribes\nand nations of Asia, see J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: a Study of\nComparative Religion, London, 1890, pp. 184-192. For the Flagellants and\ntheir processions at the time of the Black Death, see Lea, History\nof the Inquisition, New York, 1888, vol. ii, pp. 381 et seq. For the\npersecution of the Jews in time of pestilence, see ibid., p. 379 and\nfollowing, with authorities in the notes. For the expulsion of the Jews\nfrom Padua, see the Acta Sanctorum, September, tom. viii, p. 893.\n\n\nYet, as late as 1527, the people of Pavia, being threatened with plague,\nappealed to St. Bernardino of Feltro, who during his life had been a\nfierce enemy of the Jews, and they passed a decree promising that if\nthe saint would avert the pestilence they would expel the Jews from the\ncity. The saint apparently accepted the bargain, and in due time the\nJews were expelled.\n\nAs to witches, the reasons for believing them the cause of pestilence\nalso came from far. This belief, too, had been poured mainly from\nOriental sources into our sacred books and thence into the early Church,\nand was strengthened by a whole line of Church authorities, fathers,\ndoctors, and saints; but, above all, by the great bull, Summis\nDesiderantes, issued by Pope Innocent VIII, in 1484. This utterance from\nthe seat of St. Peter infallibly committed the Church to the idea that\nwitches are a great cause of disease, storms, and various ills which\nafflict humanity; and the Scripture on which the action recommended\nagainst witches in this papal bull, as well as in so many sermons and\ntreatises for centuries afterward, was based, was the famous text, \"Thou\nshalt not suffer a witch to live.\" This idea persisted long, and the\nevolution of it is among the most fearful things in human history.(332)\n\n\n     (332) On the plagues generally, see Hecker, Epidemics of the Middle\nAges, passim; but especially Haeser, as above, III. Band, pp. 1-202;\nalso Sprengel, Baas, Isensee, et al. For brief statement showing\nthe enormous loss of life in these plagues, see Littre, Medecine et\nMedecins, Paris, 1875, pp. 3 et seq. For a summary of the effects of\nthe Black Plague throughout England, see Green's Short History of the\nEnglish People, chap. v. For the mortality in the Paris hospitals,\nsee Desmazes, Supplices, Prisons et Graces en France, Paris 1866. For\nstriking descriptions of plague-stricken cities, see the well-known\npassages in Thucydides, Boccaccio, De Foe, and, above all, Manzoni's\nPromessi Sposi. For examples of averting the plagues by processions, see\nLeopold Delisle, Etudes sur la Condition de la Classe Agricole, etc., en\nNormandie au Moyen Age, p. 630; also Fort, chap. xxiii. For the anger of\nSt. Sebastian as a cause of the plague at Rome, and its cessation when\na monument had been erected to him, see Paulus Diaconus, cited in\nGregorovius, vol. ii. p. 165. For the sacrifice of an ox in the\nColosseum to the ancient gods as a means of averting the plague of 1522,\nat Rome, see Gregorovius, vol. viii, p. 390. As to massacres of the\nJews in order to avert the wrath of God in pestilence, see L'Ecole et la\nScience, Paris, 1887, p. 178; also Hecker, and especially Hoeniger, Gang\nund Verbreitung des Schwarzen Todes in Deutschalnd, Berlin, 1889. For\na long list of towns in which burnings of Jews took place for this\nimaginary cause, see pp. 7-11. As to absolute want of sanitary\nprecautions, see Hecker, p. 292. As to condemnation by strong\nreligionists of medical means in the plague, see Fort, p. 130. For a\ndetailed account of the action of Popes Eugene IV, Innocent VIII, and\nother popes, against witchcraft, ascribing to it storms and diseases,\nand for the bull Summis Desiderantes, see the chapters on Meteorology\nand Magic in this series. The text of the bull is given in the Malleus\nMaleficarum, in Binsfield, and in Roskoff, Geschichte des Teufels,\nLeipzig, 1869, vol. i, pp. 222-225, and a good summary and analysis of\nit in Soldan, Geschichte der Hexenprocesse. For a concise and admirable\nstatement of the contents and effects of the bull, see Lea, History of\nthe Inquisition, vol. iii, pp. 40 et seq.; and for the best statement\nknown to me of the general subject, Prof. George L. Burr's paper on\nThe Literature of Witchcraft, read before the American Historical\nAssociation at Washington, 1890.\n\n\nIn Germany its development was especially terrible. From the middle of\nthe sixteenth century to the middle of the seventeenth, Catholic\nand Protestant theologians and ecclesiastics vied with each other in\ndetecting witches guilty of producing sickness or bad weather; women\nwere sent to torture and death by thousands, and with them, from time to\ntime, men and children. On the Catholic side sufficient warrant for\nthis work was found in the bull of Pope Innocent VIII, and the bishops'\npalaces of south Germany became shambles,--the lordly prelates of\nSalzburg, Wurzburg, and Bamberg taking the lead in this butchery.\n\nIn north Germany Protestantism was just as conscientiously cruel. It\nbased its theory and practice toward witches directly upon the Bible,\nand above all on the great text which has cost the lives of so many\nmyriads of innocent men, women, and children, \"Thou shalt not suffer a\nwitch to live.\" Naturally the Protestant authorities strove to show that\nProtestantism was no less orthodox in this respect than Catholicism; and\nsuch theological jurists as Carpzov, Damhouder, and Calov did their work\nthoroughly. An eminent authority on this subject estimates the number of\nvictims thus sacrificed during that century in Germany alone at over a\nhundred thousand.\n\nAmong the methods of this witch activity especially credited in central\nand southern Europe was the anointing of city walls and pavements with\na diabolical unguent causing pestilence. In 1530 Michael Caddo was\nexecuted with fearful tortures for thus besmearing the pavements of\nGeneva. But far more dreadful was the torturing to death of a large body\nof people at Milan, in the following century, for producing the plague\nby anointing the walls; and a little later similar punishments for the\nsame crime were administered in Toulouse and other cities. The case in\nMilan may be briefly summarized as showing the ideas on sanitary science\nof all classes, from highest to lowest, in the seventeenth century. That\ncity was then under the control of Spain; and, its authorities having\nreceived notice from the Spanish Government that certain persons\nsuspected of witchcraft had recently left Madrid, and had perhaps gone\nto Milan to anoint the walls, this communication was dwelt upon in the\npulpits as another evidence of that Satanic malice which the Church\nalone had the means of resisting, and the people were thus excited and\nput upon the alert. One morning, in the year 1630, an old woman, looking\nout of her window, saw a man walking along the street and wiping his\nfingers upon the walls; she immediately called the attention of another\nold woman, and they agreed that this man must be one of the diabolical\nanointers. It was perfectly evident to a person under ordinary\nconditions that this unfortunate man was simply trying to remove from\nhis fingers the ink gathered while writing from the ink-horn which he\ncarried in his girdle; but this explanation was too simple to satisfy\nthose who first observed him or those who afterward tried him: a mob was\nraised and he was thrown into prison. Being tortured, he at first did\nnot know what to confess; but, on inquiring from the jailer and others,\nhe learned what the charge was, and, on being again subjected to torture\nutterly beyond endurance, he confessed everything which was suggested\nto him; and, on being tortured again and again to give the names of his\naccomplices, he accused, at hazard, the first people in the city whom\nhe thought of. These, being arrested and tortured beyond endurance,\nconfessed and implicated a still greater number, until members of the\nforemost families were included in the charge. Again and again all these\nunfortunates were tortured beyond endurance. Under paganism, the rule\nregarding torture had been that it should not be carried beyond human\nendurance; and we therefore find Cicero ridiculing it as a means of\ndetecting crime, because a stalwart criminal of strong nerves might\nresist it and go free, while a physically delicate man, though innocent,\nwould be forced to confess. Hence it was that under paganism a limit\nwas imposed to the torture which could be administered; but, when\nChristianity had become predominant throughout Europe, torture was\ndeveloped with a cruelty never before known. There had been evolved a\ndoctrine of \"excepted cases\"--these \"excepted cases\" being especially\nheresy and witchcraft; for by a very simple and logical process of\ntheological reasoning it was held that Satan would give supernatural\nstrength to his special devotees--that is, to heretics and witches--and\ntherefore that, in dealing with them, there should be no limit to the\ntorture. The result was in this particular case, as in tens of thousands\nbesides, that the accused confessed everything which could be suggested\nto them, and often in the delirium of their agony confessed far more\nthan all that the zeal of the prosecutors could suggest. Finally, a\ngreat number of worthy people were sentenced to the most cruel death\nwhich could be invented. The records of their trials and deaths are\nfrightful. The treatise which in recent years has first brought to\nlight in connected form an authentic account of the proceedings in this\naffair, and which gives at the end engravings of the accused subjected\nto horrible tortures on their way to the stake and at the place of\nexecution itself, is one of the most fearful monuments of theological\nreasoning and human folly.\n\nTo cap the climax, after a poor apothecary had been tortured into a\nconfession that he had made the magic ointment, and when he had been put\nto death with the most exquisite refinements of torture, his family were\nobliged to take another name, and were driven out from the city; his\nhouse was torn down, and on its site was erected \"The Column of Infamy,\"\nwhich remained on this spot until, toward the end of the eighteenth\ncentury, a party of young radicals, probably influenced by the reading\nof Beccaria, sallied forth one night and leveled this pious monument to\nthe ground.\n\nHerein was seen the culmination and decline of the bull Summis\nDesiderantes. It had been issued by him whom a majority of the Christian\nworld believes to be infallible in his teachings to the Church as\nregards faith and morals; yet here was a deliberate utterance in a\nmatter of faith and morals which even children now know to be utterly\nuntrue. Though Beccaria's book on Crimes and Punishments, with its\ndeclarations against torture, was placed by the Church authorities upon\nthe Index, and though the faithful throughout the Christian world were\nforbidden to read it, even this could not prevent the victory of truth\nover this infallible utterance of Innocent VIII.(333)\n\n\n     (333) As to the fearful effects of the papal bull Summis Desiderantes in\nsouth Germany, as to the Protestant severities in north Germany, as to\nthe immense number of women and children put to death for witchcraft\nin Germany generally for spreading storms and pestilence, and as to the\nmonstrous doctrine of \"excepted cases,\" see the standard authorities on\nwitchcraft, especially Wachter, Beitrage zur Geschichte des Strafrechts,\nSoldan, Horst, Hauber, and Langin; also Burr, as above. In another\nseries of chapters on The Warfare of Humanity with Theology, I hope to\ngo more fully into the subject. For the magic spreading of the plague at\nMilan, see Manzoni, I Promessi Sposi and La Colonna Infame; and for\nthe origin of the charges, with all the details of the trail, see the\nPrecesso Originale degli Untori, Milan, 1839, passim, but especially\nthe large folding plate at the end, exhibiting the tortures. For the\nafter-history of the Column of Infamy, and for the placing of Beccaria's\nbook on the Index, see Cantu, Vita di Beccaria. For the magic spreading\nof the plague in general, see Littre, pp. 492 and following.\n\n\nAs the seventeenth century went on, ingenuity in all parts of Europe\nseemed devoted to new developments of fetichism. A very curious monument\nof this evolution in Italy exists in the Royal Gallery of Paintings at\nNaples, where may be seen several pictures representing the measures\ntaken to save the city from the plague during the seventeenth century,\nbut especially from the plague of 1656. One enormous canvas gives a\ncurious example of the theological doctrine of intercession between man\nand his Maker, spun out to its logical length. In the background is the\nplague-stricken city: in the foreground the people are praying to the\ncity authorities to avert the plague; the city authorities are praying\nto the Carthusian monks; the monks are praying to St. Martin, St. Bruno,\nand St. Januarius; these three saints in their turn are praying to the\nVirgin; the Virgin prays to Christ; and Christ prays to the Almighty.\nStill another picture represents the people, led by the priests,\nexecuting with horrible tortures the Jews, heretics, and witches who\nwere supposed to cause the pestilence of 1656, while in the heavens\nthe Virgin and St. Januarius are interceding with Christ to sheathe his\nsword and stop the plague.\n\nIn such an atmosphere of thought it is no wonder that the death\nstatistics were appalling. We hear of districts in which not more than\none in ten escaped, and some were entirely depopulated.\n\nSuch appeals to fetich against pestilence have continued in Naples down\nto our own time, the great saving power being the liquefaction of the\nblood of St. Januarius. In 1856 the present writer saw this miracle\nperformed in the gorgeous chapel of the saint forming part of the\nCathedral of Naples. The chapel was filled with devout worshippers of\nevery class, from the officials in court dress, representing the Bourbon\nking, down to the lowest lazzaroni. The reliquary of silver-gilt, shaped\nlike a large human head, and supposed to contain the skull of the saint,\nwas first placed upon the altar; next, two vials containing a dark\nsubstance said to be his blood, having been taken from the wall, were\nalso placed upon the altar near the head. As the priests said masses,\nthey turned the vials from time to time, and the liquefaction being\nsomewhat delayed, the great crowd of people burst out into more and more\nimpassioned expostulation and petitions to the saint. Just in front\nof the altar were the lazzaroni who claimed to be descendants of the\nsaint's family, and these were especially importunate: at such times\nthey beg, they scold, they even threaten; they have been known to abuse\nthe saint roundly, and to tell him that, if he did not care to show his\nfavour to the city by liquefying his blood, St. Cosmo and St. Damian\nwere just as good saints as he, and would no doubt be very glad to have\nthe city devote itself to them. At last, on the occasion above referred\nto, the priest, turning the vials suddenly, announced that the saint had\nperformed the miracle, and instantly priests, people, choir, and organ\nburst forth into a great Te Deum; bells rang, and cannon roared; a\nprocession was formed, and the shrine containing the saint's relics was\ncarried through the streets, the people prostrating themselves on both\nsides of the way and throwing showers of rose leaves upon the shrine\nand upon the path before it. The contents of these precious vials are an\ninteresting relic indeed, for they represent to us vividly that period\nwhen men who were willing to go to the stake for their religious\nopinions thought it not wrong to save the souls of their fellowmen\nby pious mendacity and consecrated fraud. To the scientific eye this\nmiracle is very simple: the vials contain, no doubt, one of those\nmixtures fusing at low temperature, which, while kept in its place\nwithin the cold stone walls of the church, remains solid, but upon being\nbrought out into the hot, crowded chapel, and fondled by the warm hands\nof the priests, gradually softens and becomes liquid. It was curious\nto note, at the time above mentioned, that even the high functionaries\nrepresenting the king looked at the miracle with awe: they evidently\nfound \"joy in believing,\" and one of them assured the present writer\nthat the only thing which COULD cause it was the direct exercise of\nmiraculous power.\n\nIt may be reassuring to persons contemplating a visit to that beautiful\ncapital in these days, that, while this miracle still goes on, it is\nno longer the only thing relied upon to preserve the public health. An\nunbelieving generation, especially taught by the recent horrors of the\ncholera, has thought it wise to supplement the power of St. Januarius by\nthe \"Risanamento,\" begun mainly in 1885 and still going on. The drainage\nof the city has thus been greatly improved, the old wells closed, and\npure water introduced from the mountains. Moreover, at the last outburst\nof cholera a few years since, a noble deed was done which by its moral\neffect exercised a widespread healing power. Upon hearing of this\nterrific outbreak of pestilence, King Humbert, though under the ban of\nthe Church, broke from all the entreaties of his friends and family,\nwent directly into the plague-stricken city, and there, in the streets,\npublic places, and hospitals, encouraged the living, comforted the sick\nand dying, and took means to prevent a further spread of the pestilence.\nTo the credit of the Church it should also be said that the Cardinal\nArchbishop San Felice joined him in this.\n\nMiracle for miracle, the effect of this visit of the king seems to have\nsurpassed anything that St. Januarius could do, for it gave confidence\nand courage which very soon showed their effects in diminishing the\nnumber of deaths. It would certainly appear that in this matter the king\nwas more directly under Divine inspiration and guidance than was the\nPope; for the fact that King Humbert went to Naples at the risk of his\nlife, while Leo XIII remained in safety at the Vatican, impressed\nthe Italian people in favour of the new regime and against the old as\nnothing else could have done.\n\nIn other parts of Italy the same progress is seen under the new Italian\ngovernment. Venice, Genoa, Leghorn, and especially Rome, which under the\nsway of the popes was scandalously filthy, are now among the cleanest\ncities in Europe. What the relics of St. Januarius, St. Anthony, and\na multitude of local fetiches throughout Italy were for ages utterly\nunable to do, has been accomplished by the development of the simplest\nsanitary principles.\n\nSpain shows much the same characteristics of a country where theological\nconsiderations have been all-controlling for centuries. Down to the\ninterference of Napoleon with that kingdom, all sanitary efforts\nwere looked upon as absurd if not impious. The most sober accounts of\ntravellers in the Spanish Peninsula until a recent period are sometimes\nirresistibly comic in their pictures of peoples insisting on maintaining\narrangements more filthy than any which would be permitted in an\nAmerican backwoods camp, while taking enormous pains to stop pestilence\nby bell-ringings, processions, and new dresses bestowed upon the local\nMadonnas; yet here, too, a healthful scepticism has begun to work for\ngood. The outbreaks of cholera in recent years have done some little to\nbring in better sanitary measures.(334)\n\n\n     (334) As to the recourse to fetichism in Italy in time of plague, and\nthe pictures showing the intercession of Januarius and other saints, I\nhave relied on my own notes made at various visits to Naples. For the\ngeneral subject, see Peter, Etudes Napolitaines, especially chapters\nv and vi. For detailed accounts of the liquefaction of St. Januarius's\nblood by eye-witnesses, one an eminent Catholic of the seventeenth\ncentury, and the other a distinguished Protestant of our own time,\nsee Murray's Handbook for South Italy and Naples, description of the\nCathedral of San Gennaro. For an interesting series of articles on the\nsubject, see The Catholic World for September, October, and November,\n1871. For the incredible filthiness of the great cities of Spain, and\nthe resistance of the people, down to a recent period, to the most\nordinary regulations prompted by decency, see Bascome, History of\nthe Epidemic Pestilences, especially pp. 119, 120. See also the\nAutobiography of D'Ewes, London, 1845, vol. ii, p. 446; also, for\nvarious citations, the second volume of Buckle, History of Civilization\nin England.\n\n\n\n\nII. GRADUAL DECAY OF THEOLOGICAL VIEWS REGARDING SANITATION.\n\n\nWe have seen how powerful in various nations especially obedient to\ntheology were the forces working in opposition to the evolution of\nhygiene, and we shall find this same opposition, less effective, it is\ntrue, but still acting with great power, in countries which had become\nsomewhat emancipated from theological control. In England, during the\nmedieval period, persecutions of Jews were occasionally resorted to, and\nhere and there we hear of persecutions of witches; but, as torture was\nrarely used in England, there were, from those charged with producing\nplague, few of those torture-born confessions which in other countries\ngave rise to widespread cruelties. Down to the sixteenth and seventeenth\ncenturies the filthiness in the ordinary mode of life in England was\nsuch as we can now hardly conceive: fermenting organic material was\nallowed to accumulate and become a part of the earthen floors of rural\ndwellings; and this undoubtedly developed the germs of many diseases. In\nhis noted letter to the physician of Cardinal Wolsey, Erasmus describes\nthe filth thus incorporated into the floors of English houses, and, what\nis of far more importance, he shows an inkling of the true cause of the\nwasting diseases of the period. He says, \"If I entered into a chamber\nwhich had been uninhabited for months, I was immediately seized with a\nfever.\" He ascribed the fearful plague of the sweating sickness to this\ncause. So, too, the noted Dr. Caius advised sanitary precautions against\nthe plague, and in after-generations, Mead, Pringle, and others urged\nthem; but the prevailing thought was too strong, and little was done.\nEven the floor of the presence chamber of Queen Elizabeth in Greenwich\nPalace was \"covered with hay, after the English fashion,\" as one of the\nchroniclers tells us.\n\nIn the seventeenth century, aid in these great scourges was mainly\nsought in special church services. The foremost English churchmen during\nthat century being greatly given to study of the early fathers of the\nChurch; the theological theory of disease, so dear to the fathers, still\nheld sway, and this was the case when the various visitations reached\ntheir climax in the great plague of London in 1665, which swept off more\nthan a hundred thousand people from that city. The attempts at meeting\nit by sanitary measures were few and poor; the medical system of\nthe time was still largely tinctured by superstitions resulting from\nmedieval modes of thought; hence that plague was generally attributed to\nthe Divine wrath caused by \"the prophaning of the Sabbath.\" Texts from\nNumbers, the Psalms, Zechariah, and the Apocalypse were dwelt upon in\nthe pulpits to show that plagues are sent by the Almighty to punish\nsin; and perhaps the most ghastly figure among all those fearful scenes\ndescribed by De Foe is that of the naked fanatic walking up and down the\nstreets with a pan of fiery coals upon his head, and, after the manner\nof Jonah at Nineveh, proclaiming woe to the city, and its destruction in\nforty days.\n\nThat sin caused this plague is certain, but it was sanitary sin. Both\nbefore and after this culmination of the disease cases of plague were\nconstantly occurring in London throughout the seventeenth century; but\nabout the beginning of the eighteenth century it began to disappear. The\ngreat fire had done a good work by sweeping off many causes and centres\nof infection, and there had come wider streets, better pavements, and\nimproved water supply; so that, with the disappearance of the plague,\nother diseases, especially dysenteries, which had formerly raged in the\ncity, became much less frequent.\n\nBut, while these epidemics were thus checked in London, others developed\nby sanitary ignorance raged fearfully both there and elsewhere, and of\nthese perhaps the most fearful was the jail fever. The prisons of that\nperiod were vile beyond belief. Men were confined in dungeons rarely if\never disinfected after the death of previous occupants, and on corridors\nconnecting directly with the foulest sewers: there was no proper\ndisinfection, ventilation, or drainage; hence in most of the large\nprisons for criminals or debtors the jail fever was supreme, and from\nthese centres it frequently spread through the adjacent towns. This was\nespecially the case during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In\nthe Black Assize at Oxford, in 1577, the chief baron, the sheriff, and\nabout three hundred men died within forty hours. Lord Bacon declared the\njail fever \"the most pernicious infection next to the plague.\" In 1730,\nat the Dorsetshire Assize, the chief baron and many lawyers were killed\nby it. The High Sheriff of Somerset also took the disease and died. A\nsingle Scotch regiment, being infected from some prisoners, lost no less\nthan two hundred. In 1750 the disease was so virulent at Newgate, in the\nheart of London, that two judges, the lord mayor, sundry aldermen, and\nmany others, died of it.\n\nIt is worth noting that, while efforts at sanitary dealing with this\nstate of things were few, the theological spirit developed a new and\nspecial form of prayer for the sufferers and placed it in the Irish\nPrayer Book.\n\nThese forms of prayer seem to have been the main reliance through the\nfirst half of the eighteenth century. But about 1750 began the work\nof John Howard, who visited the prisons of England, made known their\ncondition to the world, and never rested until they were greatly\nimproved. Then he applied the same benevolent activity to prisons in\nother countries, in the far East, and in southern Europe, and finally\nlaid down his life, a victim to disease contracted on one of his\nmissions of mercy; but the hygienic reforms he began were developed\nmore and more until this fearful blot upon modern civilization was\nremoved.(335)\n\n\n     (335) For Erasmus, see the letter cited in Bascome, History of Epidemic\nPestilences, London, 1851. For the account of the condition of Queen\nElizabeth's presence chamber, see the same, p. 206; see also the same\nfor attempts at sanitation by Caius, Mead, Pringle, and others; also\nsee Baas and various medical authorities. For the plague in London, see\nGreen's History of the English People, chap. ix, sec. 2; and for a more\ndetailed account, see Lingard, History of England, enlarged edition of\n1849, vol. ix, pp. 107 et seq. For full scientific discussion of this\nand other plagues from a medical point of view, see Creighton, History\nof Epidemics in Great Britain, vol. ii, chap. i. For the London plague\nas a punishment for Sabbath-breaking, see A Divine Tragedie lately\nacted, or A collection of sundry memorable examples of God's judgements\nupon Sabbath Breakers and other like libertines, etc., by the worthy\ndivine, Mr. Henry Burton, 1641. The book gives fifty-six accounts of\nSabbath-breakers sorely punished, generally struck dead, in England,\nwith places, names, and dates. For a general account of the condition of\nLondon in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the diminution of\nthe plague by the rebuilding of some parts of the city after the great\nfire, see Lecky, History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. i,\npp. 592, 593. For the jail fever, see Lecky, vol. i, pp. 500-503.\n\n\nThe same thing was seen in the Protestant colonies of America; but\nhere, while plagues were steadily attributed to Divine wrath or\nSatanic malice, there was one case in which it was claimed that such\na visitation was due to the Divine mercy. The pestilence among the\nINDIANS, before the arrival of the Plymouth Colony, was attributed in\na notable work of that period to the Divine purpose of clearing New\nEngland for the heralds of the gospel; on the other hand, the plagues\nwhich destroyed the WHITE population were attributed by the same\nauthority to devils and witches. In Cotton Mather's Wonder of the\nInvisible World, published at Boston in 1693, we have striking examples\nof this. The great Puritan divine tells us:\n\n\"Plagues are some of those woes, with which the Divil troubles us. It\nis said of the Israelites, in 1 Cor. 10. 10. THEY WERE DESTROYED OF THE\nDESTROYER. That is, they had the Plague among them. 'Tis the Destroyer,\nor the Divil, that scatters Plagues about the World: Pestilential and\nContagious Diseases, 'tis the Divel, who do's oftentimes Invade us with\nthem. 'Tis no uneasy thing, for the Divel, to impregnate the Air\nabout us, with such Malignant Salts, as meeting with the Salt of\nour Microcosm, shall immediately cast us into that Fermentation and\nPutrefaction, which will utterly dissolve All the Vital Tyes within us;\nEv'n as an Aqua Fortis, made with a conjunction of Nitre and Vitriol,\nCorrodes what it Siezes upon. And when the Divel has raised those\nArsenical Fumes, which become Venomous. Quivers full of Terrible Arrows,\nhow easily can he shoot the deleterious Miasms into those Juices or\nBowels of Men's Bodies, which will soon Enflame them with a Mortal Fire!\nHence come such Plagues, as that Beesome of Destruction which within our\nmemory swept away such a throng of people from one English City in one\nVisitation: and hence those Infectious Feavers, which are but so many\nDisguised Plagues among us, Causing Epidemical Desolations.\"\n\nMather gives several instances of witches causing diseases, and speaks\nof \"some long Bow'd down under such a Spirit of Infirmity\" being\n\"Marvelously Recovered upon the Death of the Witches,\" of which he gives\nan instance. He also cites a case where a patient \"was brought unto\ndeath's door and so remained until the witch was taken and carried\naway by the constable, when he began at once to recover and was soon\nwell.\"(336)\n\n\n     (336) For the passages from Cotton Mather, see his book as cited, pp.\n17, 18, also 134, 145. Johnson declares that \"by this meanes Christ...\nnot only made roome for His people to plant, but also tamed the hard\nand cruell hearts of these barbarous Indians, insomuch that a halfe a\nhandful of His people landing not long after in Plymouth Plantation,\nfound little resistance.\" See The History of New England, by Edward\nJohnson, London, 1654. Reprinted in the Massachusetts Historical\nSociety's Collection, second series, vol. i, p. 67.\n\n\nIn France we see, during generation after generation, a similar history\nevolved; pestilence after pestilence came, and was met by various\nfetiches. Noteworthy is the plague at Marseilles near the beginning of\nthe last century. The chronicles of its sway are ghastly. They speak\nof great heaps of the unburied dead in the public places, \"forming\npestilential volcanoes\"; of plague-stricken men and women in delirium\nwandering naked through the streets; of churches and shrines thronged\nwith great crowds shrieking for mercy; of other crowds flinging\nthemselves into the wildest debauchery; of robber bands assassinating\nthe dying and plundering the dead; of three thousand neglected children\ncollected in one hospital and then left to die; and of the death-roll\nnumbering at last fifty thousand out of a population of less than ninety\nthousand.\n\nIn the midst of these fearful scenes stood a body of men and women\nworthy to be held in eternal honour--the physicians from Paris and\nMontpellier; the mayor of the city, and one or two of his associates;\nbut, above all, the Chevalier Roze and Bishop Belzunce. The history of\nthese men may well make us glory in human nature; but in all this noble\ngroup the figure of Belzunce is the most striking. Nobly and firmly,\nwhen so many others even among the regular and secular ecclesiastics\nfled, he stood by his flock: day and night he was at work in the\nhospitals, cheering the living, comforting the dying, and doing what was\npossible for the decent disposal of the dead. In him were united the\ntwo great antagonistic currents of religion and of theology. As a\ntheologian he organized processions and expiatory services, which, it\nmust be confessed, rather increased the disease than diminished it;\nmoreover, he accepted that wild dream of a hysterical nun--the worship\nof the material, physical sacred heart of Jesus--and was one of the\nfirst to consecrate his diocese to it; but, on the other hand, the\nreligious spirit gave in him one of its most beautiful manifestations in\nthat or any other century; justly have the people of Marseilles placed\nhis statue in the midst of their city in an attitude of prayer and\nblessing.\n\nIn every part of Europe and America, down to a recent period, we find\npestilences resulting from carelessness or superstition still called\n\"inscrutable providences.\" As late as the end of the eighteenth century,\nwhen great epidemics made fearful havoc in Austria, the main means\nagainst them seem to have been grovelling before the image of St.\nSebastian and calling in special \"witch-doctors\"--that is, monks who\ncast out devils. To seek the aid of physicians was, in the neighbourhood\nof these monastic centres, very generally considered impious, and the\nenormous death rate in such neighbourhoods was only diminished in the\npresent century, when scientific hygiene began to make its way.\n\nThe old view of pestilence had also its full course in Calvinistic\nScotland; the only difference being that, while in Roman Catholic\ncountries relief was sought by fetiches, gifts, processions, exorcisms,\nburnings of witches, and other works of expiation, promoted by priests;\nin Scotland, after the Reformation, it was sought in fast-days and\nexecutions of witches promoted by Protestant elders. Accounts of the\nfilthiness of Scotch cities and villages, down to a period well within\nthis century, seem monstrous. All that in these days is swept into the\nsewers was in those allowed to remain around the houses or thrown into\nthe streets. The old theological theory, that \"vain is the help of man,\"\nchecked scientific thought and paralyzed sanitary endeavour. The result\nwas natural: between the thirteenth and seventeenth centuries thirty\nnotable epidemics swept the country, and some of them carried off\nmultitudes; but as a rule these never suggested sanitary improvement;\nthey were called \"visitations,\" attributed to Divine wrath against human\nsin, and the work of the authorities was to announce the particular\nsin concerned and to declaim against it. Amazing theories were thus\npropounded--theories which led to spasms of severity; and, in some of\nthese, offences generally punished much less severely were visited with\ndeath. Every pulpit interpreted the ways of God to man in such seasons\nso as rather to increase than to diminish the pestilence. The effect of\nthus seeking supernatural causes rather than natural may be seen in such\nfacts as the death by plague of one fourth of the whole population of\nthe city of Perth in a single year of the fifteenth century, other towns\nsuffering similarly both then and afterward.\n\nHere and there, physicians more wisely inspired endeavoured to push\nsanitary measures, and in 1585 attempts were made to clean the streets\nof Edinburgh; but the chroniclers tell us that \"the magistrates and\nministers gave no heed.\" One sort of calamity, indeed, came in as a\nmercy--the great fires which swept through the cities, clearing and\ncleaning them. Though the town council of Edinburgh declared the noted\nfire of 1700 \"a fearful rebuke of God,\" it was observed that, after it\nhad done its work, disease and death were greatly diminished.(337)\n\n\n     (337) For the plague at Marseilles and its depopulation, see Henri\nMartin, Histoire de France, vol. xv, especially document cited in\nappendix; also Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xliii; also Rambaud. For\nthe resort to witch doctors in Austria against pestilence, down to\nthe end of the eighteenth century, see Biedermann, Deutschland im\nAchtzehnten Jahrhundert. For the resort to St. Sebastian, see the\nwidespread editions of the Vita et Gesta Sancti Sebastiani, contra\npestem patroni, prefaced with commendations from bishops and other high\necclesiastics. The edition in the Cornell University Library is that of\nAugsburg, 1693. For the reign of filth and pestilence in Scotland, see\nCharles Rogers, D. D., Social Life in Scotland, Edinburgh, 1884, vol. i,\npp. 305-316; see also Buckle's second volume.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE TRIUMPH OF SANITARY SCIENCE.\n\n\nBut by those standing in the higher places of thought some glimpses of\nscientific truth had already been obtained, and attempts at compromise\nbetween theology and science in this field began to be made, not only by\necclesiastics, but first of all, as far back as the seventeenth century,\nby a man of science eminent both for attainments and character--Robert\nBoyle. Inspired by the discoveries in other fields, which had swept away\nso much of theological thought, he could no longer resist the conviction\nthat some epidemics are due--in his own words--\"to a tragical concourse\nof natural causes\"; but he argued that some of these may be the result\nof Divine interpositions provoked by human sins. As time went on,\ngreat difficulties showed themselves in the way of this\ncompromise--difficulties theological not less than difficulties\nscientific. To a Catholic it was more and more hard to explain the\ntheological grounds why so many orthodox cities, firm in the faith,\nwere punished, and so many heretical cities spared; and why, in regions\ndevoted to the Church, the poorer people, whose faith in theological\nfetiches was unquestioning, died in times of pestilence like flies,\nwhile sceptics so frequently escaped. Difficulties of the same sort\nbeset devoted Protestants; they, too, might well ask why it was that the\ndevout peasantry in their humble cottages perished, while so much\nlarger a proportion of the more sceptical upper classes were untouched.\nGradually it dawned both upon Catholic and Protestant countries that, if\nany sin be punished by pestilence, it is the sin of filthiness; more and\nmore it began to be seen by thinking men of both religions that\nWesley's great dictum stated even less than the truth; that not only\nwas \"cleanliness akin to godliness,\" but that, as a means of keeping\noff pestilence, it was far superior to godliness as godliness was then\ngenerally understood.(338)\n\n\n     (338) For Boyle's attempt at compromise, see Discourse on the Air, in\nhis works, vol. iv, pp. 288, 289, cited by Buckle, vol. i, pp. 128, 129,\nnote.\n\n\nThe recent history of sanitation in all civilized countries shows\ntriumphs which might well fill us with wonder, did there not rise within\nus a far greater wonder that they were so long delayed. Amazing is it to\nsee how near the world has come again and again to discovering the key\nto the cause and cure of pestilence. It is now a matter of the simplest\nelementary knowledge that some of the worst epidemics are conveyed in\nwater. But this fact seems to have been discovered many times in human\nhistory. In the Peloponnesian war the Athenians asserted that their\nenemies had poisoned their cisterns; in the Middle Ages the people\ngenerally declared that the Jews had poisoned their wells; and as late\nas the cholera of 1832 the Parisian mob insisted that the water-carriers\nwho distributed water for drinking purposes from the Seine, polluted as\nit was by sewage, had poisoned it, and in some cases murdered them\non this charge: so far did this feeling go that locked covers were\nsometimes placed upon the water-buckets. Had not such men as Roger\nBacon and his long line of successors been thwarted by theological\nauthority,--had not such men as Thomas Aquinas, Vincent of Beauvais, and\nAlbert the Great been drawn or driven from the paths of science into the\ndark, tortuous paths of theology, leading no whither,--the world to-day,\nat the end of the nineteenth century, would have arrived at the solution\nof great problems and the enjoyment of great results which will only\nbe reached at the end of the twentieth century, and even in generations\nmore remote. Diseases like typhoid fever, influenza and pulmonary\nconsumption, scarlet fever, diphtheria, pneumonia, and la grippe, which\nnow carry off so many most precious lives, would have long since ceased\nto scourge the world.\n\nStill, there is one cause for satisfaction: the law governing the\nrelation of theology to disease is now well before the world, and it is\nseen in the fact that, just in proportion as the world progressed from\nthe sway of Hippocrates to that of the ages of faith, so it progressed\nin the frequency and severity of great pestilences; and that, on the\nother hand, just in proportion as the world has receded from that period\nwhen theology was all-pervading and all-controlling, plague after plague\nhas disappeared, and those remaining have become less and less frequent\nand virulent.(339)\n\n\n     (339) For the charge of poisoning water and producing pestilence among\nthe Greeks, see Grote, History of Greece, vol. vi, p. 213. For a similar\ncharge against the Jews in the Middle Ages, see various histories\nalready cited; and for the great popular prejudice against\nwater-carriers at Paris in recent times, see the larger recent French\nhistories.\n\n\nThe recent history of hygiene in all countries shows a long series of\nvictories, and these may well be studied in Great Britain and the United\nStates. In the former, though there had been many warnings from eminent\nphysicians, and above all in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,\nfrom men like Caius, Mead, and Pringle, the result was far short of\nwhat might have been gained; and it was only in the year 1838 that\na systematic sanitary effort was begun in England by the public\nauthorities. The state of things at that time, though by comparison\nwith the Middle Ages happy, was, by comparison with what has since been\ngained, fearful: the death rate among all classes was high, but among\nthe poor it was ghastly. Out of seventy-seven thousand paupers in London\nduring the years 1837 and 1838, fourteen thousand were suffering from\nfever, and of these nearly six thousand from typhus. In many other parts\nof the British Islands the sanitary condition was no better. A noble\nbody of men grappled with the problem, and in a few years one of these\nrose above his fellows--the late Edwin Chadwick. The opposition to his\nwork was bitter, and, though many churchmen aided him, the support given\nby theologians and ecclesiastics as a whole was very far short of what\nit should have been. Too many of them were occupied in that most costly\nand most worthless of all processes, \"the saving of souls\" by the\ninculcation of dogma. Yet some of the higher ecclesiastics and many of\nthe lesser clergy did much, sometimes risking their lives, and one of\nthem, Sidney Godolphin Osborne, deserves lasting memory for his struggle\nto make known the sanitary wants of the peasantry.\n\nChadwick began to be widely known in 1848 as a member of the Board of\nHealth, and was driven out for a time for overzeal; but from one point\nor another, during forty years, he fought the opposition, developed the\nnew work, and one of the best exhibits of its results is shown in his\naddress before the Sanitary Conference at Brighton in 1888. From this\nand other perfectly trustworthy sources some idea may be gained of the\ntriumph of the scientific over the theological method of dealing with\ndisease, whether epidemic or sporadic.\n\nIn the latter half of the seventeenth century the annual mortality of\nLondon is estimated at not less than eighty in a thousand; about the\nmiddle of this century it stood at twenty-four in a thousand; in 1889\nit stood at less than eighteen in a thousand; and in many parts the\nmost recent statistics show that it has been brought down to fourteen\nor fifteen in a thousand. A quarter of a century ago the death rate from\ndisease in the Royal Guards at London was twenty in a thousand; in 1888\nit had been reduced to six in a thousand. In the army generally it\nhad been seventeen in a thousand, but it has been reduced until it now\nstands at eight. In the old Indian army it had been sixty-nine in a\nthousand, but of late it has been brought down first to twenty, and\nfinally to fourteen. Mr. Chadwick in his speech proved that much more\nmight be done, for he called attention to the German army, where the\ndeath rate from disease has been reduced to between five and six in a\nthousand. The Public Health Act having been passed in 1875, the death\nrate in England among men fell, between 1871 and 1880, more than four in\na thousand, and among women more than six in a thousand. In the decade\nbetween 1851 and 1860 there died of diseases attributable to defective\ndrainage and impure water over four thousand persons in every million\nthroughout England: these numbers have declined until in 1888 there died\nless than two thousand in every million. The most striking diminution\nof the deaths from such causes was found in 1891, in the case of typhoid\nfever, that diminution being fifty per cent. As to the scourge\nwhich, next to plagues like the Black Death, was formerly the most\ndreaded--smallpox--there died of it in London during the year 1890 just\none person. Drainage in Bristol reduced the death rate by consumption\nfrom 4.4 to 2.3; at Cardiff, from 3.47 to 2.31; and in all England and\nWales, from 2.68 in 1851 to 1.55 in 1888.\n\nWhat can be accomplished by better sanitation is also seen to-day by a\ncomparison between the death rate among the children outside and inside\nthe charity schools. The death rate among those outside in 1881 was\ntwelve in a thousand; while inside, where the children were under\nsanitary regulations maintained by competent authorities, it has been\nbrought down first to eight, then to four, and finally to less than\nthree in a thousand.\n\nIn view of statistics like these, it becomes clear that Edwin Chadwick\nand his compeers among the sanitary authorities have in half a century\ndone far more to reduce the rate of disease and death than has been done\nin fifteen hundred years by all the fetiches which theological reasoning\ncould devise or ecclesiastical power enforce.\n\nNot less striking has been the history of hygiene in France: thanks\nto the decline of theological control over the universities, to the\nabolition of monasteries, and to such labours in hygienic research and\nimprovement as those of Tardieu, Levy, and Bouchardat, a wondrous change\nhas been wrought in public health. Statistics carefully kept show that\nthe mean length of human life has been remarkably increased. In the\neighteenth century it was but twenty-three years; from 1825 to 1830\nit was thirty-two years and eight months; and since 1864, thirty-seven\nyears and six months.\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE RELATION OF SANITARY SCIENCE TO RELIGION.\n\n\nThe question may now arise whether this progress in sanitary science has\nbeen purchased at any real sacrifice of religion in its highest sense.\nOne piece of recent history indicates an answer to this question.\nThe Second Empire in France had its head in Napoleon III, a noted\nVoltairean. At the climax of his power he determined to erect an Academy\nof Music which should be the noblest building of its kind. It was\nprojected on a scale never before known, at least in modern times, and\ncarried on for years, millions being lavished upon it. At the same\ntime the emperor determined to rebuild the Hotel-Dieu, the great Paris\nhospital; this, too, was projected on a greater scale than anything\nof the kind ever before known, and also required millions. But in\nthe erection of these two buildings the emperor's determination was\ndistinctly made known, that with the highest provision for aesthetic\nenjoyment there should be a similar provision, moving on parallel lines,\nfor the relief of human suffering. This plan was carried out to the\nletter: the Palace of the Opera and the Hotel-Dieu went on with equal\nsteps, and the former was not allowed to be finished before the latter.\nAmong all the \"most Christian kings\" of the house of Bourbon who had\npreceded him for five hundred years, history shows no such obedience to\nthe religious and moral sense of the nation. Catharine de' Medici and\nher sons, plunging the nation into the great wars of religion, never\nshowed any such feeling; Louis XIV, revoking the Edict of Nantes for the\nglory of God, and bringing the nation to sorrow during many generations,\nnever dreamed of making the construction of his palaces and public\nbuildings wait upon the demands of charity. Louis XV, so subservient\nto the Church in all things, never betrayed the slightest consciousness\nthat, while making enormous expenditures to gratify his own and the\nnational vanity, he ought to carry on works, pari passu, for charity.\nNor did the French nation, at those periods when it was most largely\nunder the control of theological considerations, seem to have any\ninkling of the idea that nation or monarch should make provision for\nrelief from human suffering, to justify provision for the sumptuous\nenjoyment of art: it was reserved for the second half of the nineteenth\ncentury to develop this feeling so strongly, though quietly, that\nNapoleon III, notoriously an unbeliever in all orthodoxy, was obliged to\nrecognise it and to set this great example.\n\nNor has the recent history of the United States been less fruitful in\nlessons. Yellow fever, which formerly swept not only Southern cities but\neven New York and Philadelphia, has now been almost entirely warded off.\nSuch epidemics as that in Memphis a few years since, and the immunity of\nthe city from such visitations since its sanitary condition was changed\nby Mr. Waring, are a most striking object lesson to the whole country.\nCholera, which again and again swept the country, has ceased to be\nfeared by the public at large. Typhus fever, once so deadly, is now\nrarely heard of. Curious is it to find that some of the diseases which\nin the olden time swept off myriads on myriads in every country, now\ncause fewer deaths than some diseases thought of little account, and\nfor the cure of which people therefore rely, to their cost, on quackery\ninstead of medical science.\n\nThis development of sanitary science and hygiene in the United States\nhas also been coincident with a marked change in the attitude of the\nAmerican pulpit as regards the theory of disease. In this country, as\nin others, down to a period within living memory, deaths due to want of\nsanitary precautions were constantly dwelt upon in funeral sermons as\n\"results of national sin,\" or as \"inscrutable Providences.\" That view\nhas mainly passed away among the clergy of the more enlightened parts of\nthe country, and we now find them, as a rule, active in spreading useful\nideas as to the prevention of disease. The religious press has been\nespecially faithful in this respect, carrying to every household more\njust ideas of sanitary precautions and hygienic living.\n\nThe attitude even of many among the most orthodox rulers in church and\nstate has been changed by facts like these. Lord Palmerston refusing the\nrequest of the Scotch clergy that a fast day be appointed to ward off\ncholera, and advising them to go home and clean their streets,--the\ndevout Emperor William II forbidding prayer-meetings in a similar\nemergency, on the ground that they led to neglect of practical human\nmeans of help,--all this is in striking contrast to the older methods.\n\nWell worthy of note is the ground taken in 1893, at Philadelphia, by\nan eminent divine of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The Bishop of\nPennsylvania having issued a special call to prayer in order to ward off\nthe cholera, this clergyman refused to respond to the call, declaring\nthat to do so, in the filthy condition of the streets then prevailing in\nPhiladelphia, would be blasphemous.\n\nIn summing up the whole subject, we see that in this field, as in so\nmany others, the triumph of scientific thought has gradually done much\nto evolve in the world not only a theology but also a religious spirit\nmore and more worthy of the goodness of God and of the destiny of\nman.(340)\n\n\n     (340) On the improvement in sanitation in London and elsewhere in the\nnorth of Europe, see the editorial and Report of the Conference on\nSanitation at Brighton, given in the London Times of August 27, 1888.\nFor the best authorities on the general subject in England, see Sir John\nSimon on English Sanitary Institutions, 1890; also his published Health\nReports for 1887, cited in the Edinburgh Review for January, 1891. See\nalso Parkes's Hygiene, passim. For the great increase in the mean length\nof life in France under better hygienic conditions, see Rambaud, La\nCivilisation contemporaine en France, p. 682. For the approach to\ndepopulation at Memphis, under the cesspool system in 1878, see Parkes,\nHygiene, American appendix, p. 397. For the facts brought out in the\ninvestigation of the department of the city of New York by the Committee\nof the State Senate, of which the present writer was a member, see New\nYork Senate Documents for 1865. For decrease of death rate in New York\ncity under the new Board of Health, beginning in 1866, and especially\namong children, see Buck, Hygiene and Popular Health, New York, 1879,\nvol. ii, p. 573; and for wise remarks on religious duties during\npestilence, see ibid., vol. ii, p. 579. For a contrast between the old\nand new ideas regarding pestilences, see Charles Kingsley in Fraser's\nMagazine, vol. lviii, p. 134; also the sermon of Dr. Burns, in 1875,\nat the Cathedral of Glasgow before the Social Science Congress. For a\nparticularly bright and valuable statement of the triumphs of modern\nsanitation, see Mrs. Plunkett's article in The Popular Science Monthly\nfor June, 1891. For the reply of Lord Palmerston to the Scotch clergy,\nsee the well-known passage in Buckle. For the order of the Emperor\nWilliam, see various newspapers for September, 1892, and especially\nPublic Opinion for September 24th.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.  FROM \"DEMONIACAL POSSESSION\" TO INSANITY.\n\n\n\n\nI. THEOLOGICAL IDEAS OF LUNACY AND ITS TREATMENT.\n\n\nOf all the triumphs won by science for humanity, few have been\nfarther-reaching in good effects than the modern treatment of the\ninsane. But this is the result of a struggle long and severe between\ntwo great forces. On one side have stood the survivals of various\nsuperstitions, the metaphysics of various philosophies, the dogmatism of\nvarious theologies, the literal interpretation of various sacred books,\nand especially of our own--all compacted into a creed that insanity is\nmainly or largely demoniacal possession; on the other side has stood\nscience, gradually accumulating proofs that insanity is always the\nresult of physical disease.\n\nI purpose in this chapter to sketch, as briefly as I may, the history of\nthis warfare, or rather of this evolution of truth out of error.\n\nNothing is more simple and natural, in the early stages of civilization,\nthan belief in occult, self-conscious powers of evil. Troubles and\ncalamities come upon man; his ignorance of physical laws forbids him\nto attribute them to physical causes; he therefore attributes them\nsometimes to the wrath of a good being, but more frequently to the\nmalice of an evil being.\n\nEspecially is this the case with diseases. The real causes of disease\nare so intricate that they are reached only after ages of scientific\nlabour; hence they, above all, have been attributed to the influence of\nevil spirits.(341)\n\n\n     (341) On the general attribution of disease to demoniacal influence, see\nSprenger, History of Medicine, passim (note, for a later attitude, vol.\nii, pp. 150-170, 178); Calmeil, De la Folie, Paris, 1845, vol. i, pp.\n104, 105; Esquirol, Des Maladies Mentales, Paris, 1838, vol. i, p. 482;\nalso Tylor, Primitive Culture. For a very plain and honest statement of\nthis view in our own sacred books, see Oort, Hooykaas, and Kuenen,\nThe Bible for Young People, English translation, chap. v, p. 167 and\nfollowing; also Farrar's Life of Christ, chap. xvii. For this idea\nin Greece and elsewhere, see Maury, La Magie, etc., vol. iii, p. 276,\ngiving, among other citations, one from book v of the Odyssey. On the\ninfluence of Platonism, see Esquirol and others, as above--the main\npassage cited is from the Phaedo. For the devotion of the early fathers\nand doctors to this idea, see citations from Eusebius, Lactantius, St.\nJerome, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzen,\nin Tissot, L'Imagination, p. 369; also Jacob (i.e., Paul Lecroix),\nCroyances Populaires, p. 183. For St. Augustine, see also his De\nCivitate Dei, lib. xxii, chap. vii, and his Enarration in Psal., cxxxv,\n1. For the breaking away of the religious orders in Italy from the\nentire supremacy of this idea, see Becavin, L'Ecole de Salerne, Paris,\n1888; also Daremberg, Histoire de la Medecine. Even so late as the\nProtestant Reformation, Martin Luther maintained (Table Talk, Hazlitt's\ntranslation, London, 1872, pp. 250, 256) that \"Satan produces all the\nmaladies which afflict mankind.\"\n\n\nBut, if ordinary diseases were likely to be attributed to diabolical\nagency, how much more diseases of the brain, and especially the more\nobscure of these! These, indeed, seemed to the vast majority of mankind\npossible only on the theory of Satanic intervention: any approach to a\ntrue theory of the connection between physical causes and mental results\nis one of the highest acquisitions of science.\n\nHere and there, during the whole historic period, keen men had obtained\nan inkling of the truth; but to the vast multitude, down to the end of\nthe seventeenth century, nothing was more clear than that insanity is,\nin many if not in most cases, demoniacal possession.\n\nYet at a very early date, in Greece and Rome, science had asserted\nitself, and a beginning had been made which seemed destined to bring\na large fruitage of blessings.(342) In the fifth century before the\nChristian era, Hippocrates of Cos asserted the great truth that all\nmadness is simply disease of the brain, thereby beginning a development\nof truth and mercy which lasted nearly a thousand years. In the first\ncentury after Christ, Aretaeus carried these ideas yet further, observed\nthe phenomena of insanity with great acuteness, and reached yet more\nvaluable results. Near the beginning of the following century, Soranus\nwent still further in the same path, giving new results of research, and\nstrengthening scientific truth. Toward the end of the same century a new\nepoch was ushered in by Galen, under whom the same truth was developed\nyet further, and the path toward merciful treatment of the insane made\nyet more clear. In the third century Celius Aurelianus received this\ndeposit of precious truth, elaborated it, and brought forth the great\nidea which, had theology, citing biblical texts, not banished it, would\nhave saved fifteen centuries of cruelty--an idea not fully recognised\nagain till near the beginning of the present century--the idea that\ninsanity is brain disease, and that the treatment of it must be gentle\nand kind. In the sixth century Alexander of Tralles presented still more\nfruitful researches, and taught the world how to deal with melancholia;\nand, finally, in the seventh century, this great line of scientific men,\nworking mainly under pagan auspices, was closed by Paul of Aegina, who\nunder the protection of Caliph Omar made still further observations,\nbut, above all, laid stress on the cure of madness as a disease, and on\nthe absolute necessity of mild treatment.\n\n\n     (342) It is significant of this scientific attitude that the Greek word\nfor superstition means, literally, fear of gods or demons.\n\n\nSuch was this great succession in the apostolate of science: evidently\nno other has ever shown itself more directly under Divine grace,\nillumination, and guidance. It had given to the world what might have\nbeen one of its greatest blessings.(343)\n\n\n     (343) For authorities regarding this development of scientific truth\nand mercy in antiquity, see especially Krafft-Ebing, Lehrbuch des\nPsychiatrie, Stuttgart, 1888, p. 40 and the pages following; Trelat,\nRecherches Historiques sur la Folie, Paris, 1839; Semelaigne,\nL'Alienation mentale dans l'Antiquitie, Paris, 1869; Dagron, Des\nAlienes, Paris, 1875; also Calmeil, De la Folie, Sprenger, and\nespecially Isensee, Geschichte der Medicin, Berlin, 1840.\n\n\nThis evolution of divine truth was interrupted by theology. There set\ninto the early Church a current of belief which was destined to bring\nall these noble acquisitions of science and religion to naught, and,\nduring centuries, to inflict tortures, physical and mental, upon\nhundreds of thousands of innocent men and women--a belief which held\nits cruel sway for nearly eighteen centuries; and this belief was that\nmadness was mainly or largely possession by the devil.\n\nThis idea of diabolic agency in mental disease had grown luxuriantly\nin all the Oriental sacred literatures. In the series of Assyrian\nmythological tablets in which we find those legends of the Creation, the\nFall, the Flood, and other early conceptions from which the Hebrews so\nlargely drew the accounts wrought into the book of Genesis, have been\ndiscovered the formulas for driving out the evil spirits which cause\ndisease. In the Persian theology regarding the struggle of the great\npowers of good and evil this idea was developed to its highest point.\nFrom these and other ancient sources the Jews naturally received this\naddition to their earlier view: the Mocker of the Garden of Eden became\nSatan, with legions of evil angels at his command; and the theory of\ndiabolic causes of mental disease took a firm place in our sacred books.\nSuch cases in the Old Testament as the evil spirit in Saul, which we\nnow see to have been simply melancholy--and, in the New Testament,\nthe various accounts of the casting out of devils, through which is\nrefracted the beautiful and simple story of that power by which Jesus of\nNazareth soothed perturbed minds by his presence or quelled outbursts\nof madness by his words, give examples of this. In Greece, too, an\nidea akin to this found lodgment both in the popular belief and in the\nphilosophy of Plato and Socrates; and though, as we have seen, the great\nleaders in medical science had taught with more or less distinctness\nthat insanity is the result of physical disease, there was a strong\npopular tendency to attribute the more troublesome cases of it to\nhostile spiritual influence.(344)\n\n\n     (344) For the exorcism against disease found at Ninevah, see G. Smith,\nDelitzsch's German translation, p. 34. For a very interesting passage\nregarding the representaion of a diabolic personage on a Babylonian\nbronze, and for a very frank statement regarding the transmission of\nideas regarding Satanic power to our sacred books, see Sayce, Herodotus,\nappendix ii, p. 393. It is, indeed, extremely doubtful whether Plato\nhimself or his contemporaries knew anything of evil demons, this\nconception probably coming into the Greek world, as into the Latin,\nwith the Oriental influences that began to prevail about the time of the\nbirth of Christ; but to the early Christians, a demon was a demon, and\nPlato's, good or bad, were pagan, and therefore devils. The Greek word\n\"epilepsy\" is itself a survival of the old belief, fossilized in a word,\nsince its literal meaning refers to the SEIZURE of the patient by evil\nspirits.\n\n\nFrom all these sources, but especially from our sacred books and the\nwritings of Plato, this theory that mental disease is caused largely\nor mainly by Satanic influence passed on into the early Church. In the\napostolic times no belief seems to have been more firmly settled. The\nearly fathers and doctors in the following age universally accepted it,\nand the apologists generally spoke of the power of casting out devils as\na leading proof of the divine origin of the Christian religion.\n\nThis belief took firm hold upon the strongest men. The case of St.\nGregory the Great is typical. He was a pope of exceedingly broad mind\nfor his time, and no one will think him unjustly reckoned one of the\nfour Doctors of the Western Church. Yet he solemnly relates that a\nnun, having eaten some lettuce without making the sign of the cross,\nswallowed a devil, and that, when commanded by a holy man to come forth,\nthe devil replied: \"How am I to blame? I was sitting on the lettuce,\nand this woman, not having made the sign of the cross, ate me along with\nit.\"(345)\n\n\n     (345) For a striking statement of the Jewish belief in diabolical\ninterference, see Josephus, De Bello Judaico, vii, 6, iii; also his\nAntiquities, vol. viii, Whiston's translation. On the \"devil cast out,\"\nin Mark ix, 17-29, as undoubtedly a case of epilepsy, see Cherullier,\nEssai sur l'Epilepsie; also Maury, art. Demonique in the Encyclopedie\nModerne. In one text, at least, the popular belief is perfectly shown as\nconfounding madness and possession: \"He hath a devil, and is mad,\" John\nx, 20. Among the multitude of texts, those most relied upon were Matthew\nviii, 28, and Luke x, 17; and for the use of fetiches in driving out\nevil spirits, the account of the cures wrought by touching the garments\nof St. Paul in Acts xix, 12. On the general subject, see authorities\nalready given, and as a typical passage, Tertullian, Ad. Scap., ii.\nFor the very gross view taken by St. Basil, see Cudworth, Intellectual\nSystem, vol. ii, p. 648; also Archdeacon Farrar's Life of Christ. For\nthe case related by St. Gregory the Great with comical details, see the\nExempla of Archbishop Jacques de Vitrie, edited by Prof. T. F. Crane,\nof Cornell University, p. 59, art. cxxx. For a curious presentation\nof Greek views, see Lelut, Le demon Socrate, Paris, 1856; and for\nthe transmission of these to Christianity, see the same, p. 201 and\nfollowing.\n\n\nAs a result of this idea, the Christian Church at an early period in\nits existence virtually gave up the noble conquests of Greek and Roman\nscience in this field, and originated, for persons supposed to be\npossessed, a regular discipline, developed out of dogmatic theology.\nBut during the centuries before theology and ecclesiasticism had become\nfully dominant this discipline was, as a rule, gentle and useful.\nThe afflicted, when not too violent, were generally admitted to the\nexercises of public worship, and a kindly system of cure was attempted,\nin which prominence was given to holy water, sanctified ointments, the\nbreath or spittle of the priest, the touching of relics, visits to holy\nplaces, and submission to mild forms of exorcism. There can be no doubt\nthat many of these things, when judiciously used in that spirit of love\nand gentleness and devotion inherited by the earlier disciples from \"the\nMaster,\" produced good effects in soothing disturbed minds and in aiding\ntheir cure.\n\nAmong the thousands of fetiches of various sorts then resorted to may\nbe named, as typical, the Holy Handkerchief of Besancon. During many\ncenturies multitudes came from far and near to touch it; for, it was\nargued, if touching the garments of St. Paul at Ephesus had cured the\ndiseased, how much more might be expected of a handkerchief of the Lord\nhimself!\n\nWith ideas of this sort was mingled a vague belief in medical treatment,\nand out of this mixture were evolved such prescriptions as the\nfollowing:\n\n\"If an elf or a goblin come, smear his forehead with this salve, put it\non his eyes, cense him with incense, and sign him frequently with the\nsign of the cross.\"\n\n\"For a fiend-sick man: When a devil possesses a man, or controls him\nfrom within with disease, a spew-drink of lupin, bishopswort, henbane,\ngarlic. Pound these together, add ale and holy water.\"\n\nAnd again: \"A drink for a fiend-sick man, to be drunk out of a church\nbell: Githrife, cynoglossum, yarrow, lupin, flower-de-luce, fennel,\nlichen, lovage. Work up to a drink with clear ale, sing seven masses\nover it, add garlic and holy water, and let the possessed sing the Beati\nImmaculati; then let him drink the dose out of a church bell, and let\nthe priest sing over him the Domine Sancte Pater Omnipotens.\"(346)\n\n\n     (346) See Cockayne, Leechdoms, Wort-cunning, and Star-Craft of Early\nEngland in the Rolls Series, vol. ii, p. 177; also pp. 355, 356. For the\ngreat value of priestly saliva, see W. W. Story's essays.\n\n\nHad this been the worst treatment of lunatics developed in the\ntheological atmosphere of the Middle Ages, the world would have\nbeen spared some of the most terrible chapters in its history; but,\nunfortunately, the idea of the Satanic possession of lunatics led to\nattempts to punish the indwelling demon. As this theological theory and\npractice became more fully developed, and ecclesiasticism more powerful\nto enforce it, all mildness began to disappear; the admonitions\nto gentle treatment by the great pagan and Moslem physicians were\nforgotten, and the treatment of lunatics tended more and more toward\nseverity: more and more generally it was felt that cruelty to madmen was\npunishment of the devil residing within or acting upon them.\n\nA few strong churchmen and laymen made efforts to resist this tendency.\nAs far back as the fourth century, Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa,\naccepted the truth as developed by pagan physicians, and aided them\nin strengthening it. In the seventh century, a Lombard code embodied a\nsimilar effort. In the eighth century, one of Charlemagne's capitularies\nseems to have had a like purpose. In the ninth century, that great\nchurchman and statesman, Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, superior to his\ntime in this as in so many other things, tried to make right reason\nprevail in this field; and, near the beginning of the tenth century,\nRegino, Abbot of Prum, in the diocese of Treves, insisted on treating\npossession as disease. But all in vain; the current streaming most\ndirectly from sundry texts in the Christian sacred books, and swollen by\ntheology, had become overwhelming.(347)\n\n\n     (347) For a very thorough and interesting statement on the general\nsubject, see Kirchhoff, Beziehungen des Damonen- und Hexenwesens zur\ndeutschen Irrenpflege in the Allgemeine Zeitschrift fur Psychiatrie,\nBerlin, 1888, Bd. xliv, Heft 25. For Roman Catholic authority, see Addis\nand Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, article Energumens. For a brief and\neloquent summary, see Krefft-Ebing, Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie, as above;\nand for a clear view of the transition from pagan mildness in the care\nof the insane to severity and cruelty under the Christian Church, see\nMaudsley, The Pathology of the Mind, London, 1879, p. 523. See also\nBuchmann, Die undfreie und die freie Kirche, Bresleau, 1873, p. 251.\nFor other citations, see Kirchoff, as above, pp. 334-346. For Bishop\nNemesius, see Trelat, p. 48. For an account of Agobard's general\nposition in regard to this and allied superstitions, see Reginald Lane\nPoole's Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, London, 1884.\n\n\nThe first great tributary poured into this stream, as we approach the\nbloom of the Middle Ages, appears to have come from the brain of Michael\nPsellus. Mingling scriptural texts, Platonic philosophy, and theological\nstatements by great doctors of the Church, with wild utterances obtained\nfrom lunatics, he gave forth, about the beginning of the twelfth\ncentury, a treatise on The Work of Demons. Sacred science was vastly\nenriched thereby in various ways; but two of his conclusions, the\nresults of his most profound thought, enforced by theologians and\npopularized by preachers, soon took special hold upon the thinking\nportion of the people at large. The first of these, which he easily\nbased upon Scripture and St. Basil, was that, since all demons suffer by\nmaterial fire and brimstone, they must have material bodies; the second\nwas that, since all demons are by nature cold, they gladly seek a genial\nwarmth by entering the bodies of men and beasts.(348)\n\n\n     (348) See Baas and Werner, cited by Kirchhoff, as above; also Lecky,\nRationalism in Europe, vol. i, p. 68, and note, New York, 1884. As to\nBasil's belief in the corporeality of devils, see his Commentary on\nIsaiah, cap. i.\n\n\nFed by this stream of thought, and developed in the warm atmosphere of\nmedieval devotion, the idea of demoniacal possession as the main source\nof lunacy grew and blossomed and bore fruit in noxious luxuriance.\n\nThere had, indeed, come into the Middle Ages an inheritance of\nscientific thought. The ideas of Hippocrates, Celius Aurelianus,\nGalen, and their followers, were from time to time revived; the Arabian\nphysicians, the School of Salerno, such writers as Salicetus and Guy de\nChauliac, and even some of the religious orders, did something to keep\nscientific doctrines alive; but the tide of theological thought was\ntoo strong; it became dangerous even to seem to name possible limits to\ndiabolical power. To deny Satan was atheism; and perhaps nothing did so\nmuch to fasten the epithet \"atheist\" upon the medical profession as the\nsuspicion that it did not fully acknowledge diabolical interference\nin mental disease. Following in the lines of the earlier fathers, St.\nAnselm, Abelard, St. Thomas Aquinas, Vincent of Beauvais, all the great\ndoctors in the medieval Church, some of them in spite of occasional\nmisgivings, upheld the idea that insanity is largely or mainly\ndemoniacal possession, basing their belief steadily on the sacred\nScriptures; and this belief was followed up in every quarter by more\nand more constant citation of the text \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch\nto live.\" No other text of Scripture--save perhaps one--has caused the\nshedding of so much innocent blood.\n\nAs we look over the history of the Middle Ages, we do, indeed, see\nanother growth from which one might hope much; for there were two great\nstreams of influence in the Church, and never were two powers more\nunlike each other.\n\nOn one side was the spirit of Christianity, as it proceeded from the\nheart and mind of its blessed Founder, immensely powerful in aiding the\nevolution of religious thought and effort, and especially of provision\nfor the relief of suffering by religious asylums and tender care.\nNothing better expresses this than the touching words inscribed upon a\ngreat medieval hospital, \"Christo in pauperibus suis.\" But on the other\nside was the theological theory--proceeding, as we have seen, from the\nsurvival of ancient superstitions, and sustained by constant reference\nto the texts in our sacred books--that many, and probably most, of the\ninsane were possessed by the devil or in league with him, and that the\ncruel treatment of lunatics was simply punishment of the devil and his\nminions. By this current of thought was gradually developed one of\nthe greatest masses of superstitious cruelty that has ever afflicted\nhumanity. At the same time the stream of Christian endeavour, so far\nas the insane were concerned, was almost entirely cut off. In all the\nbeautiful provision during the Middle Ages for the alleviation of human\nsuffering, there was for the insane almost no care. Some monasteries,\nindeed, gave them refuge. We hear of a charitable work done for them at\nthe London Bethlehem Hospital in the thirteenth century, at Geneva in\nthe fifteenth, at Marseilles in the sixteenth, by the Black Penitents in\nthe south of France, by certain Franciscans in northern France, by the\nAlexian Brothers on the Rhine, and by various agencies in other parts of\nEurope; but, curiously enough, the only really important effort in the\nChristian Church was stimulated by the Mohammedans. Certain monks, who\nhad much to do with them in redeeming Christian slaves, found in the\nfifteenth century what John Howard found in the eighteenth, that the\nArabs and Turks made a large and merciful provision for lunatics, such\nas was not seen in Christian lands; and this example led to better\nestablishments in Spain and Italy.\n\nAll honour to this work and to the men who engaged in it; but, as a\nrule, these establishments were few and poor, compared with those for\nother diseases, and they usually degenerated into \"mad-houses,\" where\ndevils were cast out mainly by cruelty.(349)\n\n\n     (349) For a very full and learned, if somewhat one-sided, account of the\nearlier effects of this stream of charitable thought, see Tollemer, Des\nOrigines de la Charite Catholique, Paris, 1858. It is instructive to\nnote that, while this book is very full in regard to the action of the\nChurch on slavery and on provision for the widows and orphans, the sick,\ninfirm, captives, and lepers, there is hardly a trace of any care for\nthe insane. This same want is incidentally shown by a typical example\nin Kriegk, Aerzte, Heilanstalten und Geisteskranke im mittelalterlichen\nFrankfurt, Frankfurt a. M., 1863, pp. 16, 17; also Kirschhof, pp. 396,\n397. On the general subject, see Semelaigne, as above, p. 214; also\nCalmeil, vol. i, pp. 116, 117. For the effect of Muslem example in Spain\nand Italy, see Krafft-Ebing, as above, p. 45, note.\n\n\nThe first main weapon against the indwelling Satan continued to be the\nexorcism; but under the influence of inferences from Scripture farther\nand farther fetched, and of theological reasoning more and more subtle,\nit became something very different from the gentle procedure of earlier\ntimes, and some description of this great weapon at the time of its\nhighest development will throw light on the laws which govern the growth\nof theological reasoning, as well as upon the main subject in hand.\n\nA fundamental premise in the fully developed exorcism was that,\naccording to sacred Scripture, a main characteristic of Satan is pride.\nPride led him to rebel; for pride he was cast down; therefore the first\nthing to do, in driving him out of a lunatic, was to strike a fatal blow\nat his pride,--to disgust him.\n\nThis theory was carried out logically, to the letter. The treatises\non the subject simply astound one by their wealth of blasphemous and\nobscene epithets which it was allowable for the exorcist to use in\ncasting out devils. The Treasury of Exorcisms contains hundreds of pages\npacked with the vilest epithets which the worst imagination could invent\nfor the purpose of overwhelming the indwelling Satan.(350)\n\n\n     (350) Thesaurus Exorcismorum atque Conjurationum terribilium,\npotentissimorum, efficacissimorum, cum PRACTICA probatissima: quibus\nspiritus maligni, Daemones Maleficiaque omnia de Corporibus humanis\nobsessis, tanquam Flagellis Fustibusque fugantur, expelluntur,...\nCologne, 1626. Many of the books of the exorcists were put upon the\nvarious indexes of the Church, but this, the richest collection of all,\nand including nearly all those condemned, was not prohibited until\n1709. Scarcely less startling manuals continued even later in use; and\nexorcisms adapted to every emergency may of course still be found in all\nthe Benedictionals of the Church, even the latest. As an example, see\nthe Manuale Benedictionum, published by the Bishop of Passau in 1849, or\nthe Exorcismus in Satanam, etc., issued in 1890 by the present Pope, and\nnow on sale at the shop of the Propoganda in Rome.\n\n\nSome of those decent enough to be printed in these degenerate days ran\nas follows:\n\n\"Thou lustful and stupid one,... thou lean sow, famine-stricken and\nmost impure,... thou wrinkled beast, thou mangy beast, thou beast of all\nbeasts the most beastly,... thou mad spirit,... thou bestial and foolish\ndrunkard,... most greedy wolf,... most abominable whisperer,... thou sooty\nspirit from Tartarus!... I cast thee down, O Tartarean boor, into the\ninfernal kitchen!... Loathsome cobbler,... dingy collier,... filthy\nsow (scrofa stercorata),... perfidious boar,... envious crocodile,...\nmalodorous drudge,... wounded basilisk,... rust-coloured asp,...\nswollen toad,... entangled spider,... lousy swine-herd (porcarie\npedicose),... lowest of the low,... cudgelled ass,\" etc.\n\nBut, in addition to this attempt to disgust Satan's pride with\nblackguardism, there was another to scare him with tremendous words. For\nthis purpose, thunderous names, from Hebrew and Greek, were imported,\nsuch as Acharon, Eheye, Schemhamphora, Tetragrammaton, Homoousion,\nAthanatos, Ischiros, Aecodes, and the like.(351)\n\n\n     (351) See the Conjuratio on p. 300 of the Thesaurus, and the general\ndirections given on pp. 251, 251.\n\n\nEfforts were also made to drive him out with filthy and rank-smelling\ndrugs; and, among those which can be mentioned in a printed article,\nwe may name asafoetida, sulphur, squills, etc., which were to be burned\nunder his nose.\n\nStill further to plague him, pictures of the devil were to be spat upon,\ntrampled under foot by people of low condition, and sprinkled with foul\ncompounds.\n\nBut these were merely preliminaries to the exorcism proper. In this\nthe most profound theological thought and sacred science of the period\nculminated.\n\nMost of its forms were childish, but some rise to almost Miltonic\ngrandeur. As an example of the latter, we may take the following:\n\n\"By the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ, which God hath given to make\nknown unto his servants those things which are shortly to be; and hath\nsignified, sending by his angel,... I exorcise you, ye angels of untold\nperversity!\n\n\"By the seven golden candlesticks,... and by one like unto the Son of\nman, standing in the midst of the candlesticks; by his voice, as the\nvoice of many waters;... by his words, 'I am living, who was dead; and\nbehold, I live forever and ever; and I have the keys of death and of\nhell,' I say unto you, Depart, O angels that show the way to eternal\nperdition!\"\n\nBesides these, were long litanies of billingsgate, cursing, and\nthreatening. One of these \"scourging\" exorcisms runs partly as follows:\n\n\"May Agyos strike thee, as he did Egypt, with frogs!... May all the\ndevils that are thy foes rush forth upon thee, and drag thee down to\nhell!... May... Tetragrammaton... drive thee forth and stone thee, as\nIsrael did to Achan!... May the Holy One trample on thee and hang thee\nup in an infernal fork, as was done to the five kings of the\nAmorites!... May God set a nail to your skull, and pound it in with a\nhammer, as Jael did unto Sisera!... May... Sother... break thy head and\ncut off thy hands, as was done to the cursed Dagon!... May God hang thee\nin a hellish yoke, as seven men were hanged by the sons of Saul!\" And so\non, through five pages of close-printed Latin curses.(352)\n\n\n     (352) Thesaurus Exorcismorum, pp. 812-817.\n\n\nOccasionally the demon is reasoned with, as follows: \"O obstinate,\naccursed, fly!... why do you stop and hold back, when you know that your\nstrength is lost on Christ? For it is hard for thee to kick against the\npricks; and, verily, the longer it takes you to go, the worse it will\ngo with you. Begone, then: take flight, thou venomous hisser, thou lying\nworm, thou begetter of vipers!\"(353)\n\n\n     (353) Ibid., p. 859.\n\n\nThis procedure and its results were recognised as among the glories of\nthe Church. As typical, we may mention an exorcism directed by a certain\nBishop of Beauvais, which was so effective that five devils gave up\npossession of a sufferer and signed their names, each for himself and\nhis subordinate imps, to an agreement that the possessed should be\nmolested no more. So, too, the Jesuit fathers at Vienna, in 1583,\ngloried in the fact that in such a contest they had cast out twelve\nthousand six hundred and fifty-two living devils. The ecclesiastical\nannals of the Middle Ages, and, indeed, of a later period, abound in\nboasts of such \"mighty works.\"(354)\n\n\n     (354) In my previous chapters, especially that on meteorology, I have\nquoted extensively from the original treatises, of which a very large\ncollection is in my posession; but in this chapter I have mainly availed\nmyself of the copious translations given by M. H. Dziewicki, in his\nexcellent article in The Nineteenth Century for October, 1888, entitled\nExorcizo Te. For valuable citations on the origin and spread of\nexorcism, see Lecky's European Morals (third English edition), vol. i,\npp. 379-385.\n\n\nSuch was the result of a thousand years of theological reasoning, by\nthe strongest minds in Europe, upon data partly given in Scripture and\npartly inherited from paganism, regarding Satan and his work among men.\n\nUnder the guidance of theology, always so severe against \"science\nfalsely so called,\" the world had come a long way indeed from the\nsoothing treatment of the possessed by him who bore among the noblest\nof his titles that of \"The Great Physician.\" The result was natural: the\ntreatment of the insane fell more and more into the hands of the jailer,\nthe torturer, and the executioner.\n\nTo go back for a moment to the beginnings of this unfortunate\ndevelopment. In spite of the earlier and more kindly tendency in\nthe Church, the Synod of Ancyra, as early as 314 A.D., commanded\nthe expulsion of possessed persons from the Church; the Visigothic\nChristians whipped them; and Charlemagne, in spite of some good\nenactments, imprisoned them. Men and women, whose distempered minds\nmight have been restored to health by gentleness and skill, were driven\ninto hopeless madness by noxious medicines and brutality. Some few were\nsaved as mere lunatics--they were surrendered to general carelessness,\nand became simply a prey to ridicule and aimless brutality; but vast\nnumbers were punished as tabernacles of Satan.\n\nOne of the least terrible of these punishments, and perhaps the most\ncommon of all, was that of scourging demons out of the body of a\nlunatic. This method commended itself even to the judgment of so\nthoughtful and kindly a personage as Sir Thomas More, and as late as the\nsixteenth century. But if the disease continued, as it naturally would\nafter such treatment, the authorities frequently felt justified in\ndriving out the demons by torture.(355)\n\n\n     (355) For prescription of the whipping-post by Sir Thomas More, see D.\nH. Tuke's History of Insanity in the British Isles, London, 1882, p. 41.\n\n\nInteresting monuments of this idea, so fruitful in evil, still exist.\nIn the great cities of central Europe, \"witch towers,\" where witches\nand demoniacs were tortured, and \"fool towers,\" where the more gentle\nlunatics were imprisoned, may still be seen.\n\nIn the cathedrals we still see this idea fossilized. Devils and imps,\nstruck into stone, clamber upon towers, prowl under cornices, peer out\nfrom bosses of foliage, perch upon capitals, nestle under benches,\nflame in windows. Above the great main entrance, the most common of\nall representations still shows Satan and his imps scowling, jeering,\ngrinning, while taking possession of the souls of men and scourging\nthem with serpents, or driving them with tridents, or dragging them\nwith chains into the flaming mouth of hell. Even in the most hidden and\nsacred places of the medieval cathedral we still find representations\nof Satanic power in which profanity and obscenity run riot. In these\nrepresentations the painter and the glass-stainer vied with the\nsculptor. Among the early paintings on canvas a well-known example\nrepresents the devil in the shape of a dragon, perched near the head of\na dying man, eager to seize his soul as it issues from his mouth, and\nonly kept off by the efforts of the attendant priest. Typical are the\ncolossal portrait of Satan, and the vivid picture of the devils cast\nout of the possessed and entering into the swine, as shown in the\ncathedral-windows of Strasburg. So, too, in the windows of Chartres\nCathedral we see a saint healing a lunatic: the saint, with a long\ndevil-scaring formula in Latin issuing from his mouth; and the lunatic,\nwith a little detestable hobgoblin, horned, hoofed, and tailed, issuing\nfrom HIS mouth. These examples are but typical of myriads in cathedrals\nand abbeys and parish churches throughout Europe; and all served to\nimpress upon the popular mind a horror of everything called diabolic,\nand a hatred of those charged with it. These sermons in stones preceded\nthe printed book; they were a sculptured Bible, which preceded Luther's\npictorial Bible.(356)\n\n\n     (356) I cite these instances out of a vast number which I have\npersonally noted in visits to various cathedrals. For striking examples\nof mediaeval grotesques, see Wright's History of Caricature and the\nGrotesque, London, 1875; Langlois's Stalles de la Cathedrale de Rouen,\n1838; Adeline's Les Sculptures Grotesques et Symboliques, Rouen,\n1878; Viollet le Duc, Dictionnaire de l'Architecture; Gailhabaud, Sur\nl'Architecture, etc. For a reproduction of an illuminated manuscript in\nwhich devils fly out of the mouths of the possessed under the influence\nof exorcisms, see Cahier and Martin, Nouveaux Melanges d' Archeologie\nfor 1874, p. 136; and for a demon emerging from a victim's mouth in a\npuff of smoke at the command of St. Francis Xavier, see La Devotion de\nDix Vendredis, etc., Plate xxxii.\n\n\nSatan and his imps were among the principal personages in every popular\ndrama, and \"Hell's Mouth\" was a piece of stage scenery constantly\nbrought into requisition. A miracle-play without a full display of the\ndiabolic element in it would have stood a fair chance of being pelted\nfrom the stage.(357)\n\n\n     (357) See Wright, History of Caricature and the Grotesque; F. J.\nMone, Schauspiele des Mittelalters, Carlsruhe, 1846; Dr. Karl Hase,\nMiracle-Plays and Sacred Dramas, Boston,1880 (translation from the\nGerman). Examples of the miracle-plays may be found in Marriott's\nCollection of English Miracle-Plays, 1838; in Hone's Ancient Mysteries;\nin T. Sharpe's Dissertaion on the Pageants.. . anciently performed at\nCoventry, Coventry, 1828; in the publications of the Shakespearean and\nother societies. See especially The Harrowing of Hell, a miracle-play,\nedited from the original now in the British Museum, by T. O. Halliwell,\nLondon, 1840. One of the items still preserved is a sum of money paid\nfor keeping a fire burning in hell's mouth. Says Hase (as above, p. 42):\n\"In wonderful satyrlike masquerade, in which neither horns, tails,\nnor hoofs were ever... wanting, the devil prosecuted on the stage his\nbusiness of fetching souls,\" which left the mouths of the dying \"in the\nform of small images.\"\n\n\nNot only the popular art but the popular legends embodied these ideas.\nThe chroniclers delighted in them; the Lives of the Saints abounded in\nthem; sermons enforced them from every pulpit. What wonder, then, that\nmen and women had vivid dreams of Satanic influence, that dread of it\nwas like dread of the plague, and that this terror spread the disease\nenormously, until we hear of convents, villages, and even large\ndistricts, ravaged by epidemics of diabolical possession!(358)\n\n\n     (358) I shall discuss these epidemics of possession, which form a\nsomewhat distinct class of phenomena, in the next chapter.\n\n\nAnd this terror naturally bred not only active cruelty toward those\nsupposed to be possessed, but indifference to the sufferings of those\nacknowledged to be lunatics. As we have already seen, while ample and\nbeautiful provision was made for every other form of human suffering,\nfor this there was comparatively little; and, indeed, even this little\nwas generally worse than none. Of this indifference and cruelty we\nhave a striking monument in a single English word--a word originally\nsignificant of gentleness and mercy, but which became significant of\nwild riot, brutality, and confusion--Bethlehem Hospital became \"Bedlam.\"\n\nModern art has also dwelt upon this theme, and perhaps the most\ntouching of all its exhibitions is the picture by a great French master,\nrepresenting a tender woman bound to a column and exposed to the jeers,\ninsults, and missiles of street ruffians.(359)\n\n\n     (359) The typical picture representing a priest's struggle with the\ndevil is in the city gallery of Rouen. The modern picture is Robert\nFleury's painting in the Luxembourg Gallery at Paris.\n\n\nHere and there, even in the worst of times, men arose who attempted to\npromote a more humane view, but with little effect. One expositor of St.\nMatthew, having ventured to recall the fact that some of the insane were\nspoken of in the New Testament as lunatics and to suggest that their\nmadness might be caused by the moon, was answered that their madness\nwas not caused by the moon, but by the devil, who avails himself of the\nmoonlight for his work.(360)\n\n\n     (360) See Geraldus Cambrensis, cited by Tuke, as above, pp. 8, 9.\n\n\nOne result of this idea was a mode of cure which especially aggravated\nand spread mental disease: the promotion of great religious processions.\nTroops of men and women, crying, howling, imploring saints, and beating\nthemselves with whips, visited various sacred shrines, images, and\nplaces in the hope of driving off the powers of evil. The only result\nwas an increase in the numbers of the diseased.\n\nFor hundreds of years this idea of diabolic possession was steadily\ndeveloped. It was believed that devils entered into animals, and animals\nwere accordingly exorcised, tried, tortured, convicted, and executed.\nThe great St. Ambrose tells us that a priest, while saying mass, was\ntroubled by the croaking of frogs in a neighbouring marsh; that he\nexorcised them, and so stopped their noise. St. Bernard, as the monkish\nchroniclers tell us, mounting the pulpit to preach in his abbey, was\ninterrupted by a cloud of flies; straightway the saint uttered the\nsacred formula of excommunication, when the flies fell dead upon the\npavement in heaps, and were cast out with shovels! A formula of exorcism\nattributed to a saint of the ninth century, which remained in use down\nto a recent period, especially declares insects injurious to crops to\nbe possessed of evil spirits, and names, among the animals to be\nexcommunicated or exorcised, mice, moles, and serpents. The use of\nexorcism against caterpillars and grasshoppers was also common. In the\nthirteenth century a Bishop of Lausanne, finding that the eels in Lake\nLeman troubled the fishermen, attempted to remove the difficulty by\nexorcism, and two centuries later one of his successors excommunicated\nall the May-bugs in the diocese. As late as 1731 there appears an entry\non the Municipal Register of Thonon as follows: \"RESOLVED, That this\ntown join with other parishes of this province in obtaining from Rome\nan excommunication against the insects, and that it will contribute pro\nrata to the expenses of the same.\"\n\nDid any one venture to deny that animals could be possessed by Satan,\nhe was at once silenced by reference to the entrance of Satan into the\nserpent in the Garden of Eden, and to the casting of devils into swine\nby the Founder of Christianity himself.(361)\n\n\n     (361) See Menabrea, Proces au Moyen Age contre les Animaux, Chambery,\n1846, pp. 31 and following; also Desmazes, Supplices, Prisons et Grace\nen France, pp. 89, 90, and 385-395. For a formula and ceremonies used in\nexcommunicating insects, see Rydberg, pp. 75 and following.\n\n\nOne part of this superstition most tenaciously held was the belief that\na human being could be transformed into one of the lower animals. This\nbecame a fundamental point. The most dreaded of predatory animals in the\nMiddle Ages were the wolves. Driven from the hills and forests in the\nwinter by hunger, they not only devoured the flocks, but sometimes came\ninto the villages and seized children. From time to time men and women\nwhose brains were disordered dreamed that they had been changed into\nvarious animals, and especially into wolves. On their confessing this,\nand often implicating others, many executions of lunatics resulted;\nmoreover, countless sane victims, suspected of the same impossible\ncrime, were forced by torture to confess it, and sent unpitied to the\nstake. The belief in such a transformation pervaded all Europe, and\nlasted long even in Protestant countries. Probably no article in\nthe witch creed had more adherents in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and\nseventeenth centuries than this. Nearly every parish in Europe had its\nresultant horrors.\n\nThe reformed Church in all its branches fully accepted the doctrines of\nwitchcraft and diabolic possession, and developed them still further.\nNo one urged their fundamental ideas more fully than Luther. He did,\nindeed, reject portions of the witchcraft folly; but to the influence of\ndevils he not only attributed his maladies, but his dreams, and nearly\neverything that thwarted or disturbed him. The flies which lighted upon\nhis book, the rats which kept him awake at night, he believed to be\ndevils; the resistance of the Archbishop of Mayence to his ideas, he\nattributed to Satan literally working in that prelate's heart; to his\ndisciples he told stories of men who had been killed by rashly resisting\nthe devil. Insanity, he was quite sure, was caused by Satan, and he\nexorcised sufferers. Against some he appears to have advised stronger\nremedies; and his horror of idiocy, as resulting from Satanic influence,\nwas so great, that on one occasion he appears to have advised the\nkilling of an idiot child, as being the direct offspring of Satan. Yet\nLuther was one of the most tender and loving of men; in the whole range\nof literature there is hardly anything more touching than his words and\ntributes to children. In enforcing his ideas regarding insanity, he laid\nstress especially upon the question of St. Paul as to the bewitching of\nthe Galatians, and, regarding idiocy, on the account in Genesis of the\nbirth of children whose fathers were \"sons of God\" and whose mothers\nwere \"daughters of men.\" One idea of his was especially characteristic.\nThe descent of Christ into hell was a frequent topic of discussion in\nthe Reformed Church. Melanchthon, with his love of Greek studies, held\nthat the purpose of the Saviour in making such a descent was to make\nhimself known to the great and noble men of antiquity--Plato, Socrates,\nand the rest; but Luther insisted that his purpose was to conquer Satan\nin a hand-to-hand struggle.\n\nThis idea of diabolic influence pervaded his conversation, his\npreaching, his writings, and spread thence to the Lutheran Church in\ngeneral. Calvin also held to the same theory, and, having more power\nwith less kindness of heart than Luther, carried it out with yet\ngreater harshness. Beza was especially severe against those who believed\ninsanity to be a natural malady, and declared, \"Such persons are refuted\nboth by sacred and profane history.\"\n\nUnder the influence, then, of such infallible teachings, in the older\nChurch and in the new, this superstition was developed more and more\ninto cruelty; and as the biblical texts, popularized in the sculptures\nand windows and mural decorations of the great medieval cathedrals, had\ndone much to develop it among the people, so Luther's translation of\nthe Bible, especially in the numerous editions of it illustrated with\nengravings, wrought with enormous power to spread and deepen it. In\nevery peasant's cottage some one could spell out the story of the devil\nbearing Christ through the air and placing him upon the pinnacle of\nthe Temple--of the woman with seven devils--of the devils cast into\nthe swine. Every peasant's child could be made to understand the quaint\npictures in the family Bible or the catechism which illustrated vividly\nall those texts. In the ideas thus deeply implanted, the men who in\nthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries struggled against this mass of\nfolly and cruelty found the worst barrier to right reason.(362)\n\n\n     (362) For Luther, see, among the vast number of similar passages in his\nworks, the Table Talk, Hazlitt's translation, pp. 251, 252. As to\nthe grotesques in mediaeval churches, the writer of this article, in\nvisiting the town church of Wittenberg, noticed, just opposite the\npulpit where Luther so often preached, a very spirited figure of an\nimp peering out upon the congregation. One can but suspect that this\nmediaeval survival frequently suggested Luther's favourite topic during\nhis sermons. For Beza, see his Notes on the New Testament, Matthew iv,\n24.\n\n\nSuch was the treatment of demoniacs developed by theology, and such the\npractice enforced by ecclesiasticism for more than a thousand years.\n\nHow an atmosphere was spread in which this belief began to dissolve\naway, how its main foundations were undermined by science, and how there\ncame in gradually a reign of humanity, will now be related.\n\n\n\n\nII. BEGINNINGS OF A HEALTHFUL SCEPTICISM.\n\n\nWe have now seen the culmination of the old procedure regarding\ninsanity, as it was developed under theology and enforced by\necclesiasticism; and we have noted how, under the influence of Luther\nand Calvin, the Reformation rather deepened than weakened the faith in\nthe malice and power of a personal devil. Nor was this, in the Reformed\nchurches any more than in the old, mere matter of theory. As in the\nearly ages of Christianity, its priests especially appealed, in proof\nof the divine mission, to their power over the enemy of mankind in the\nbodies of men, so now the clergy of the rival creeds eagerly sought\nopportunities to establish the truth of their own and the falsehood of\ntheir opponents' doctrines by the visible casting out of devils. True,\ntheir methods differed somewhat: where the Catholic used holy water and\nconsecrated wax, the Protestant was content with texts of Scripture\nand importunate prayer; but the supplementary physical annoyance of the\nindwelling demon did not greatly vary. Sharp was the competition for the\nunhappy objects of treatment. Each side, of course, stoutly denied all\nefficacy to its adversaries' efforts, urging that any seeming victory\nover Satan was due not to the defeat but to the collusion of the fiend.\nAs, according to the Master himself, \"no man can by Beelzebub cast out\ndevils,\" the patient was now in greater need of relief than before; and\nmore than one poor victim had to bear alternately Lutheran, Roman, and\nperhaps Calvinistic exorcism.(363)\n\n\n     (363) For instances of this competition, see Freytag, Aus dem Jahrh. d.\nReformation, pp. 359-375. The Jesuit Stengel, in his De judiciis divinis\n(Ingolstadt, 1651), devotes a whole chapter to an exorcism, by the great\nCanisius, of a spirit that had baffled Protestant conjuration. Among\nthe most jubilant Catholic satires of the time are those exulting in\nLuther's alleged failure as an exorcist.\n\n\nBut far more serious in its consequences was another rivalry to which in\nthe sixteenth century the clergy of all creeds found themselves subject.\nThe revival of the science of medicine, under the impulse of the new\nstudy of antiquity, suddenly bade fair to take out of the hands of the\nChurch the profession of which she had enjoyed so long and so profitable\na monopoly. Only one class of diseases remained unquestionably\nhers--those which were still admitted to be due to the direct personal\ninterference of Satan--and foremost among these was insanity.(364) It\nwas surely no wonder that an age of religious controversy and excitement\nshould be exceptionally prolific in ailments of the mind; and, to men\nwho mutually taught the utter futility of that baptismal exorcism by\nwhich the babes of their misguided neighbours were made to renounce\nthe devil and his works, it ought not to have seemed strange that his\nvictims now became more numerous.(365) But so simple an explanation did\nnot satisfy these physicians of souls; they therefore devised a simpler\none: their patients, they alleged, were bewitched, and their increase\nwas due to the growing numbers of those human allies of Satan known as\nwitches.\n\n\n     (364) For the attitude of the Catholic clergy, the best sources are the\nconfidential Jesuit Litterae Annuae. To this day the numerous treatises\non \"pastoral medicine\" in use in the older Church devote themselves\nmainly to this sort of warfare with the devil.\n\n\n     (365) Baptismal exorcism continued in use among the Lutherans till the\neighteenth century, though the struggle over its abandonment had been\nlong and sharp. See Krafft, Histories vom Exorcismo, Hamburg, 1750.\n\n\nAlready, before the close of the fifteenth century, Pope Innocent VIII\nhad issued the startling bull by which he called on the archbishops,\nbishops, and other clergy of Germany to join hands with his inquisitors\nin rooting out these willing bond-servants of Satan, who were said to\nswarm throughout all that country and to revel in the blackest crimes.\nOther popes had since reiterated the appeal; and, though none of these\ndocuments touched on the blame of witchcraft for diabolic possession,\nthe inquisitors charged with their execution pointed it out most clearly\nin their fearful handbook, the Witch-Hammer, and prescribed the special\nmeans by which possession thus caused should be met. These teachings\ntook firm root in religious minds everywhere; and during the great age\nof witch-burning that followed the Reformation it may well be doubted\nwhether any single cause so often gave rise to an outbreak of the\npersecution as the alleged bewitchment of some poor mad or foolish or\nhysterical creature. The persecution, thus once under way, fed itself;\nfor, under the terrible doctrine of \"excepted cases,\" by which in the\nreligious crimes of heresy and witchcraft there was no limit to the use\nof torture, the witch was forced to confess to accomplices, who in turn\naccused others, and so on to the end of the chapter.(366)\n\n\n     (366) The Jesuit Stengel, professor at Ingolstadt, who (in his great\nwork, De judiciis divinis) urges, as reasons why a merciful God permits\nillness, his wish to glorify himself through the miracles wrought by his\nChurch, and his desire to test the faith of men by letting them choose\nbetween the holy aid of the Church and the illicit resort to medicine,\ndeclares that there is a difference between simple possession and\nthat brought by bewitchment, and insists that the latter is the more\ndifficult to treat.\n\n\nThe horrors of such a persecution, with the consciousness of an\never-present devil it breathed and the panic terror of him it\ninspired, could not but aggravate the insanity it claimed to cure.\nWell-authenticated, though rarer than is often believed, were the cases\nwhere crazed women voluntarily accused themselves of this impossible\ncrime. One of the most eminent authorities on diseases of the mind\ndeclares that among the unfortunate beings who were put to death for\nwitchcraft he recognises well-marked victims of cerebral disorders;\nwhile an equally eminent authority in Germany tells us that, in a most\ncareful study of the original records of their trials by torture, he has\noften found their answers and recorded conversations exactly like those\nfamiliar to him in our modern lunatic asylums, and names some forms\nof insanity which constantly and un mistakably appear among those who\nsuffered for criminal dealings with the devil.(367) The result of this\nwidespread terror was naturally, therefore, a steady increase in mental\ndisorders. A great modern authority tells us that, although modern\ncivilization tends to increase insanity, the number of lunatics at\npresent is far less than in the ages of faith and in the Reformation\nperiod. The treatment of the \"possessed,\" as we find it laid down\nin standard treatises, sanctioned by orthodox churchmen and jurists,\naccounts for this abundantly. One sort of treatment used for those\naccused of witchcraft will also serve to show this--the \"tortura\ninsomniae.\" Of all things in brain-disease, calm and regular sleep is\nmost certainly beneficial; yet, under this practice, these half-crazed\ncreatures were prevented, night after night and day after day, from\nsleeping or even resting. In this way temporary delusion became chronic\ninsanity, mild cases became violent, torture and death ensued, and the\n\"ways of God to man\" were justified.(368) But the most contemptible\ncreatures in all those centuries were the physicians who took sides\nwith religious orthodoxy. While we have, on the side of truth, Flade\nsacrificing his life, Cornelius Agrippa his liberty, Wier and Loos\ntheir hopes of preferment, Bekker his position, and Thomasius his ease,\nreputation, and friends, we find, as allies of the other side, a troop\nof eminently respectable doctors mixing Scripture, metaphysics, and\npretended observations to support the \"safe side\" and to deprecate\ninterference with the existing superstition, which seemed to them \"a\nvery safe belief to be held by the common people.\"(369)\n\n\n     (367) See D. H. Tuke, Chapters in the History of the Insane in the\nBritish Isles, London, 1822, p. 36; also Kirchhoff, p. 340. The forms\nof insanity especially mentioned are \"dementia senilis\" and epilepsy. A\nstriking case of voluntary confession of witchcraft by a woman who lived\nto recover from the delusion is narrated in great detail by Reginald\nScot, in his Discovery of Witchcraft, London, 1584. It is, alas, only\ntoo likely that the \"strangeness\" caused by slight and unrecognised\nmania led often to the accusation of witchcraft instead of to the\nsuspicion of possession.\n\n\n     (368) See Kirchhoff, as above.\n\n\n     (369) For the arguments used by creatures of this sort, see Diefenbach,\nDer Hexenwahn vor und nach der Glaubensspaltung in Deutschland, pp.\n342-346. A long list of their infamous names is given on p. 345.\n\n\nAgainst one form of insanity both Catholics and Protestants were\nespecially cruel. Nothing is more common in all times of religious\nexcitement than strange personal hallucinations, involving the belief,\nby the insane patient, that he is a divine person. In the most striking\nrepresentation of insanity that has ever been made, Kaulbach shows,\nat the centre of his wonderful group, a patient drawing attention to\nhimself as the Saviour of the world.\n\nSometimes, when this form of disease took a milder hysterical character,\nthe subject of it was treated with reverence, and even elevated to\nsainthood: such examples as St. Francis of Assisi and St. Catherine of\nSiena in Italy, St. Bridget in Sweden, St. Theresa in Spain, St. Mary\nAlacoque in France, and Louise Lateau in Belgium, are typical. But more\nfrequently such cases shocked public feeling, and were treated with\nespecial rigour: typical of this is the case of Simon Marin, who in his\ninsanity believed himself to be the Son of God, and was on that account\nburned alive at Paris and his ashes scattered to the winds.(370)\n\n\n     (370) As to the frequency among the insane of this form of belief, see\nCalmeil, vol. ii, p. 257; also Maudsley, Pathology of Mind, pp. 201,\n202, and 418-424; also Rambaud, Histoire de la Civilisation en France,\nvol. ii, p. 110. For the peculiar abberations of the saints above named\nand other ecstatics, see Maudsley, as above, pp. 71, 72, and 149, 150.\nMaudsley's chapters on this and cognate subjects are certainly among the\nmost valuable contributions to modern thought. For a discussion of the\nmost recent case, see Warlomont, Louise Lateau, Paris, 1875.\n\n\nThe profundity of theologians and jurists constantly developed new\ntheories as to the modes of diabolic entrance into the \"possessed.\"\nOne such theory was that Satan could be taken into the mouth with one's\nfood--perhaps in the form of an insect swallowed on a leaf of salad, and\nthis was sanctioned, as we have seen, by no less infallible an authority\nthan Gregory the Great, Pope and Saint--Another theory was that Satan\nentered the body when the mouth was opened to breathe, and there are\nwell-authenticated cases of doctors and divines who, when casting out\nevil spirits, took especial care lest the imp might jump into their own\nmouths from the mouth of the patient. Another theory was that the devil\nentered human beings during sleep; and at a comparatively recent period\na King of Spain was wont to sleep between two monks, to keep off the\ndevil.(371)\n\n\n     (371) As to the devil's entering into the mouth while eating, see\nCalmeil, as above, vol. ii, pp. 105, 106. As to the dread of Dr. Borde\nlest the evil spirit, when exorcised, might enter his own body, see\nTuke, as above, p. 28. As to the King of Spain, see the noted chapter in\nBuckle's History of Civilization in England.\n\n\nThe monasteries were frequent sources of that form of mental disease\nwhich was supposed to be caused by bewitchment. From the earliest period\nit is evident that monastic life tended to develop insanity. Such cases\nas that of St. Anthony are typical of its effects upon the strongest\nminds; but it was especially the convents for women that became the\ngreat breeding-beds of this disease. Among the large numbers of women\nand girls thus assembled--many of them forced into monastic seclusion\nagainst their will, for the reason that their families could give them\nno dower--subjected to the unsatisfied longings, suspicions, bickerings,\npetty jealousies, envies, and hatreds, so inevitable in convent\nlife--mental disease was not unlikely to be developed at any moment.\nHysterical excitement in nunneries took shapes sometimes comical, but\nmore generally tragical. Noteworthy is it that the last places where\nexecutions for witchcraft took place were mainly in the neighbourhood of\ngreat nunneries; and the last famous victim, of the myriads executed\nin Germany for this imaginary crime, was Sister Anna Renata Singer,\nsub-prioress of a nunnery near Wurzburg.(372)\n\n\n     (372) Among the multitude of authorities on this point, see Kirchhoff,\nas above, p. 337; and for a most striking picture of this dark side of\nconvent life, drawn, indeed, by a devoted Roman Catholic, see Manzoni's\nPromessi Sposi. On Anna Renata there is a striking essay by the late\nJohannes Scherr, in his Hammerschlage und Historien. On the general\nsubject of hysteria thus developed, see the writings of Carpenter and\nTuke; and as to its natural development in nunneries, see Maudsley,\nResponsibility in Mental Disease, p. 9. Especial attention will be paid\nto this in the chapter on Diabolism and Hysteria.\n\n\nThe same thing was seen among young women exposed to sundry fanatical\nProtestant preachers. Insanity, both temporary and permanent, was thus\nfrequently developed among the Huguenots of France, and has been thus\nproduced in America, from the days of the Salem persecution down to the\n\"camp meetings\" of the present time.(373)\n\n\n     (373) This branch of the subject will be discussed more at length in a\nfuture chapter.\n\n\nAt various times, from the days of St. Agobard of Lyons in the ninth\ncentury to Pomponatius in the sixteenth, protests or suggestions, more\nor less timid, had been made by thoughtful men against this system.\nMedicine had made some advance toward a better view, but the theological\ntorrent had generally overwhelmed all who supported a scientific\ntreatment. At last, toward the end of the sixteenth century, two men\nmade a beginning of a much more serious attack upon this venerable\nsuperstition. The revival of learning, and the impulse to thought\non material matters given during the \"age of discovery,\" undoubtedly\nproduced an atmosphere which made the work of these men possible. In the\nyear 1563, in the midst of demonstrations of demoniacal possession by\nthe most eminent theologians and judges, who sat in their robes and\nlooked wise, while women, shrieking, praying, and blaspheming, were put\nto the torture, a man arose who dared to protest effectively that some\nof the persons thus charged might be simply insane; and this man was\nJohn Wier, of Cleves.\n\nHis protest does not at this day strike us as particularly bold. In his\nbooks, De Praestigiis Daemonum and De Lamiis, he did his best not to\noffend religious or theological susceptibilities; but he felt obliged to\ncall attention to the mingled fraud and delusion of those who claimed to\nbe bewitched, and to point out that it was often not their accusers, but\nthe alleged witches themselves, who were really ailing, and to urge that\nthese be brought first of all to a physician.\n\nHis book was at once attacked by the most eminent theologians. One of\nthe greatest laymen of his time, Jean Bodin, also wrote with especial\npower against it, and by a plentiful use of scriptural texts gained\nto all appearance a complete victory: this superstition seemed thus\nfastened upon Europe for a thousand years more. But doubt was in the\nair, and, about a quarter of a century after the publication of Wier's\nbook there were published in France the essays of a man by no means\nso noble, but of far greater genius--Michel de Montaigne. The general\nscepticism which his work promoted among the French people did much to\nproduce an atmosphere in which the belief in witchcraft and demoniacal\npossession must inevitably wither. But this process, though real, was\nhidden, and the victory still seemed on the theological side.\n\nThe development of the new truth and its struggle against the old error\nstill went on. In Holland, Balthazar Bekker wrote his book against the\nworst forms of the superstition, and attempted to help the scientific\nside by a text from the Second Epistle of St. Peter, showing that the\ndevils had been confined by the Almighty, and therefore could not\nbe doing on earth the work which was imputed to them. But Bekker's\nProtestant brethren drove him from his pulpit, and he narrowly escaped\nwith his life.\n\nThe last struggles of a great superstition are very frequently the\nworst. So it proved in this case. In the first half of the seventeenth\ncentury the cruelties arising from the old doctrine were more numerous\nand severe than ever before. In Spain, Sweden, Italy, and, above all,\nin Germany, we see constant efforts to suppress the evolution of the new\ntruth.\n\nBut in the midst of all this reactionary rage glimpses of right reason\nbegan to appear. It is significant that at this very time, when the old\nsuperstition was apparently everywhere triumphant, the declaration\nby Poulet that he and his brother and his cousin had, by smearing\nthemselves with ointment, changed themselves into wolves and devoured\nchildren, brought no severe punishment upon them. The judges sent him to\na mad-house. More and more, in spite of frantic efforts from the pulpit\nto save the superstition, great writers and jurists, especially in\nFrance, began to have glimpses of the truth and courage to uphold it.\nMalebranche spoke against the delusion; Seguier led the French courts\nto annul several decrees condemning sorcerers; the great chancellor,\nD'Aguesseau, declared to the Parliament of Paris that, if they wished to\nstop sorcery, they must stop talking about it--that sorcerers are more\nto be pitied than blamed.(374)\n\n\n     (374) See Esquirol, Des Maladies mentales, vol. i, pp. 488, 489; vol.\nii, p. 529.\n\n\nBut just at this time, as the eighteenth century was approaching,\nthe theological current was strengthened by a great ecclesiastic--the\ngreatest theologian that France has produced, whose influence upon\nreligion and upon the mind of Louis XIV was enormous--Bossuet, Bishop\nof Meaux. There had been reason to expect that Bossuet would at least do\nsomething to mitigate the superstition; for his writings show that, in\nmuch which before his day had been ascribed to diabolic possession,\nhe saw simple lunacy. Unfortunately, the same adherence to the literal\ninterpretation of Scripture which led him to oppose every other\nscientific truth developed in his time, led him also to attack this:\nhe delivered and published two great sermons, which, while showing\nsome progress in the form of his belief, showed none the less that the\nfundamental idea of diabolic possession was still to be tenaciously\nheld. What this idea was may be seen in one typical statement: he\ndeclared that \"a single devil could turn the earth round as easily as we\nturn a marble.\"(375)\n\n\n     (375) See the two sermons, Sur les Demons (which are virtually but two\nversions of the same sermon), in Bousset's works, edition of 1845,\nvol. iii, p. 236 et seq.; also Dziewicki, in The Nineteenth Century, as\nabove. On Bousset's resistance to other scientific truths, especially\nin astronomy, geology, and political economy, see other chapters in this\nwork.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE FINAL STRUGGLE AND VICTORY OF SCIENCE.--PINEL AND TUKE.\n\n\nThe theological current, thus re-enforced, seemed to become again\nirresistible; but it was only so in appearance. In spite of it, French\nscepticism continued to develop; signs of quiet change among the mass of\nthinking men were appearing more and more; and in 1672 came one of\ngreat significance, for, the Parliament of Rouen having doomed fourteen\nsorcerers to be burned, their execution was delayed for two years,\nevidently on account of scepticism among officials; and at length the\ngreat minister of Louis XIV, Colbert, issued an edict checking such\ntrials, and ordering the convicted to be treated for madness.\n\nVictory seemed now to incline to the standard of science, and in 1725 no\nless a personage than St. Andre, a court physician, dared to publish a\nwork virtually showing \"demoniacal possession\" to be lunacy.\n\nThe French philosophy, from the time of its early development in\nthe eighteenth century under Montesquieu and Voltaire, naturally\nstrengthened the movement; the results of post-mortem examinations of\nthe brains of the \"possessed\" confirmed it; and in 1768 we see it take\nform in a declaration by the Parliament of Paris, that possessed persons\nwere to be considered as simply diseased. Still, the old belief lingered\non, its life flickering up from time to time in those parts of France\nmost under ecclesiastical control, until in these last years of the\nnineteenth century a blow has been given it by the researches of Charcot\nand his compeers which will probably soon extinguish it. One evidence\nof Satanic intercourse with mankind especially, on which for many\ngenerations theologians had laid peculiar stress, and for which they\nhad condemned scores of little girls and hundreds of old women to a most\ncruel death, was found to be nothing more than one of the many results\nof hysteria.(376)\n\n\n     (376) For Colbert's influence, see Dagron, p. 8; also Rambaud, as above,\nvol. ii, p. 155. For St. Andre, see Lacroix, as above, pp. 189, 190.\nFor Charcot's researches into the disease now known as Meteorismus\nhystericus, but which was formerly regarded in the ecclesiastical courts\nas an evidence of pregnancy through relations with Satan, see Snell,\nHexenprocesse un Geistesstorung, Munchen, 1891, chaps. xii and xiii.\n\n\nIn England the same warfare went on. John Locke had asserted the truth,\nbut the theological view continued to control public opinion. Most\nprominent among those who exercised great power in its behalf was John\nWesley, and the strength and beauty of his character made his influence\nin this respect all the more unfortunate. The same servitude to the mere\nletter of Scripture which led him to declare that \"to give up witchcraft\nis to give up the Bible,\" controlled him in regard to insanity. He\ninsisted, on the authority of the Old Testament, that bodily diseases\nare sometimes caused by devils, and, upon the authority of the New\nTestament, that the gods of the heathen are demons; he believed that\ndreams, while in some cases caused by bodily conditions and passions,\nare shown by Scripture to be also caused by occult powers of evil; he\ncites a physician to prove that \"most lunatics are really demoniacs.\" In\nhis great sermon on Evil Angels, he dwells upon this point especially;\nresists the idea that \"possession\" may be epilepsy, even though ordinary\nsymptoms of epilepsy be present; protests against \"giving up to infidels\nsuch proofs of an invisible world as are to be found in diabolic\npossession\"; and evidently believes that some who have been made\nhysterical by his own preaching are \"possessed of Satan.\" On all this,\nand much more to the same effect, he insisted with all the power given\nto him by his deep religious nature, his wonderful familiarity with the\nScriptures, his natural acumen, and his eloquence.\n\nBut here, too, science continued its work. The old belief was steadily\nundermined, an atmosphere favourable to the truth was more and more\ndeveloped, and the act of Parliament, in 1735, which banished the crime\nof witchcraft from the statute book, was the beginning of the end.\n\nIn Germany we see the beginnings of a similar triumph for science. In\nPrussia, that sturdy old monarch, Frederick William I, nullified the\nefforts of the more zealous clergy and orthodox jurists to keep up the\nold doctrine in his dominions; throughout Protestant Germany, where\nit had raged most severely, it was, as a rule, cast out of the Church\nformulas, catechisms, and hymns, and became more and more a subject for\njocose allusion. From force of habit, and for the sake of consistency,\nsome of the more conservative theologians continued to repeat the\nold arguments, and there were many who insisted upon the belief as\nabsolutely necessary to ordinary orthodoxy; but it is evident that it\nhad become a mere conventionality, that men only believed that they\nbelieved it, and now a reform seemed possible in the treatment of the\ninsane.(377)\n\n\n     (377) For John Locke, see King's Life of Locke, pp. 326, 327. For\nWesley, out of his almost innumerable writings bearing on the subject,\nI may select the sermon on Evil Angels, and his Letter to Dr. Middleton;\nand in his collected works, there are many striking statements and\narguments, especially in vols. iii, vi, and ix. See also Tyerman's Life\nof Wesley, vol. ii, pp. 260 et seq. Luther's great hymn, Ein' feste\nBurg, remained, of course, a prominent exception to the rule; but a\npopular proverb came to express the general feeling: \"Auf Teufel reimt\nsich Zweifel.\" See Langin, as above, pp. 545, 546.\n\n\nIn Austria, the government set Dr. Antonio Haen at making careful\nresearches into the causes of diabolic possession. He did not think it\nbest, in view of the power of the Church, to dispute the possibility\nor probability of such cases, but simply decided, after thorough\ninvestigation, that out of the many cases which had been brought to him,\nnot one supported the belief in demoniacal influence. An attempt was\nmade to follow up this examination, and much was done by men like\nFrancke and Van Swieten, and especially by the reforming emperor, Joseph\nII, to rescue men and women who would otherwise have fallen victims to\nthe prevalent superstition. Unfortunately, Joseph had arrayed against\nhimself the whole power of the Church, and most of his good efforts\nseemed brought to naught. But what the noblest of the old race of German\nemperors could not do suddenly, the German men of science did gradually.\nQuietly and thoroughly, by proofs that could not be gainsaid, they\nrecovered the old scientific fact established in pagan Greece and Rome,\nthat madness is simply physical disease. But they now established it on\na basis that can never again be shaken; for, in post-mortem examinations\nof large numbers of \"possessed\" persons, they found evidence of\nbrain-disease. Typical is a case at Hamburg in 1729. An afflicted woman\nshowed in a high degree all the recognised characteristics of diabolic\npossession: exorcisms, preachings, and sanctified remedies of every sort\nwere tried in vain; milder medical means were then tried, and she so far\nrecovered that she was allowed to take the communion before she died:\nthe autopsy, held in the presence of fifteen physicians and a public\nnotary, showed it to be simply a case of chronic meningitis. The work of\nGerman men of science in this field is noble indeed; a great succession,\nfrom Wier to Virchow, have erected a barrier against which all the\nefforts of reactionists beat in vain.(378)\n\n\n     (378) See Kirchhoff, pp. 181-187; also Langin, Religion und\nHexenprozess, as above cited.\n\n\nIn America, the belief in diabolic influence had, in the early colonial\nperiod, full control. The Mathers, so superior to their time in many\nthings, were children of their time in this: they supported the belief\nfully, and the Salem witchcraft horrors were among its results; but the\ndiscussion of that folly by Calef struck it a severe blow, and a better\ninfluence spread rapidly throughout the colonies.\n\nBy the middle of the eighteenth century belief in diabolic possession\nhad practically disappeared from all enlightened countries, and during\nthe nineteenth century it has lost its hold even in regions where the\nmedieval spirit continues strongest. Throughout the Middle Ages, as we\nhave seen, Satan was a leading personage in the miracle-plays, but\nin 1810 the Bavarian Government refused to allow the Passion Play at\nOber-Ammergau if Satan was permitted to take any part in it; in spite of\nheroic efforts to maintain the old belief, even the childlike faith of\nthe Tyrolese had arrived at a point which made a representation of Satan\nsimply a thing to provoke laughter.\n\nVery significant also was the trial which took place at Wemding, in\nsouthern Germany, in 1892. A boy had become hysterical, and the Capuchin\nFather Aurelian tried to exorcise him, and charged a peasant's wife,\nFrau Herz, with bewitching him, on evidence that would have cost the\nwoman her life at any time during the seventeenth century. Thereupon the\nwoman's husband brought suit against Father Aurelian for slander.\nThe latter urged in his defence that the boy was possessed of an evil\nspirit, if anybody ever was; that what had been said and done was in\naccordance with the rules and regulations of the Church, as laid down\nin decrees, formulas, and rituals sanctioned by popes, councils, and\ninnumerable bishops during ages. All in vain. The court condemned the\ngood father to fine and imprisonment. As in a famous English case,\n\"hell was dismissed, with costs.\" Even more significant is the fact that\nrecently a boy declared by two Bavarian priests to be possessed by\nthe devil, was taken, after all Church exorcisms had failed, to Father\nKneipp's hydropathic establishment and was there speedily cured.(379)\n\n\n     (379) For remarkably interesting articles showing the recent efforts\nof sundry priests in Italy and South Germany to revive the belief\nin diabolic possession--efforts in which the Bishop of Augsburg took\npart--see Prof. E. P. Evans, on Modern Instances of Diabolic Possession,\nand on Recent Recrudescence of Superstition in The Popular Science\nMonthly for Dec. 1892, and for Oct., Nov., 1895.\n\nSpeaking of the part played by Satan at Ober-Ammergau, Hase says:\n\"Formerly, seated on his infernal throne, surrounded by his hosts with\nSin and Death, he opened the play,... and... retained throughout a\nconsiderable part; but he has been surrendered to the progress of that\nenlightenment which even the Bavarian highlands have not been able to\nescape\" (p. 80).\n\nThe especial point to be noted is, that from the miracle-play of the\npresent day Satan and his works have disappeared. The present writer\nwas unable to detect, in a representation of the Passion Play at\nOber-Ammergau, in 1881, the slightest reference to diabolic interference\nwith the course of events as represented from the Old Testament, or from\nthe New, in a series of tableaux lasting, with a slight intermission,\nfrom nine in the morning to after four in the afternoon. With the most\nthorough exhibition of minute events in the life of Christ, and at times\nwith hundreds of figures on the stage, there was not a person or a word\nwhich recalled that main feature in the mediaeval Church plays. The\npresent writer also made a full collection of the photographs of\ntableaux, of engravings of music, and of works bearing upon these\nrepresentations for twenty years before, and in none of these was there\nan apparent survival of the old belief.\n\n\nBut, although the old superstition had been discarded, the inevitable\nconservatism in theology and medicine caused many old abuses to be\ncontinued for years after the theological basis for them had really\ndisappeared. There still lingered also a feeling of dislike toward\nmadmen, engendered by the early feeling of hostility toward them, which\nsufficed to prevent for many years any practical reforms.\n\nWhat that old theory had been, even under the most favourable\ncircumstances and among the best of men, we have seen in the fact that\nSir Thomas More ordered acknowledged lunatics to be publicly flogged;\nand it will be remembered that Shakespeare makes one of his characters\nrefer to madmen as deserving \"a dark house and a whip.\" What the old\npractice was and continued to be we know but too well. Taking Protestant\nEngland as an example--and it was probably the most humane--we have a\nchain of testimony. Toward the end of the sixteenth century, Bethlehem\nHospital was reported too loathsome for any man to enter; in the\nseventeenth century, John Evelyn found it no better; in the eighteenth,\nHogarth's pictures and contemporary reports show it to be essentially\nwhat it had been in those previous centuries.(380)\n\n\n     (380) On Sir Thomas More and the condition of Bedlam, see Tuke, History\nof the Insane in the British Isles, pp. 63-73. One of the passages of\nShakespeare is in As You Like It, Act iii, scene 2. As to the survival\nof indifference to the sufferings of the insane so long after the belief\nwhich caused it had generally disappeared, see some excellent remarks in\nMaudsley's Responsibility in Mental Disease, London, 1885, pp. 10-12.\n\nThe older English practice is thus quaintly described by Richard Carew\n(in his Survey of Cornwall, London, 1602, 1769): \"In our forefathers'\ndaies, when devotion as much exceeded knowledge, as knowledge now\ncommeth short of devotion, there were many bowssening places, for curing\nof mad men, and amongst the rest, one at Alternunne in this Hundred,\ncalled S. Nunnespoole, which Saints Altar (it may be)... gave name to\nthe church... The watter running from S. Nunnes well, fell into a square\nand close walled plot, which might bee filled at what depth they listed.\nVpon this wall was the franticke person set to stand, his backe towards\nthe poole, and from thence with a sudden blow in the brest, tumbled\nheadlong into the pond; where a strong fellowe, provided for the nonce,\ntooke him, and tossed him vp and downe, alongst and athwart the water,\nvntill the patient, by forgoing strength, had somewhat forgot his fury.\nThen there was hee conveyed to the Church, and certain Masses sung over\nhim; vpon which handling, if his right wits returned, S. Nunne had\nthe thanks; but if there appeared any small amendment, he was bowsened\nagaine, and againe, while there remayned in him any hope of life, for\nrecovery.\"\n\n\nThe first humane impulse of any considerable importance in this field\nseems to have been aroused in America. In the year 1751 certain members\nof the Society of Friends founded a small hospital for the insane, on\nbetter principles, in Pennsylvania. To use the language of its founders,\nit was intended \"as a good work, acceptable to God.\" Twenty years later\nVirginia established a similar asylum, and gradually others appeared in\nother colonies.\n\nBut it was in France that mercy was to be put upon a scientific basis,\nand was to lead to practical results which were to convert the world to\nhumanity. In this case, as in so many others, from France was spread\nand popularized not only the scepticism which destroyed the theological\ntheory, but also the devotion which built up the new scientific theory\nand endowed the world with a new treasure of civilization.\n\nIn 1756 some physicians of the great hospital at Paris known as the\nHotel-Dieu protested that the cruelties prevailing in the treatment of\nthe insane were aggravating the disease; and some protests followed from\nother quarters. Little effect was produced at first; but just before the\nFrench Revolution, Tenon, La Rochefoucauld-Liancourt, and others took\nup the subject, and in 1791 a commission was appointed to undertake a\nreform.\n\nBy great good fortune, the man selected to lead in the movement was one\nwho had already thrown his heart into it--Jean Baptiste Pinel. In 1792\nPinel was made physician at Bicetre, one of the most extensive lunatic\nasylums in France, and to the work there imposed upon him he gave all\nhis powers. Little was heard of him at first. The most terrible scenes\nof the French Revolution were drawing nigh; but he laboured on, modestly\nand devotedly--apparently without a thought of the great political storm\nraging about him.\n\nHis first step was to discard utterly the whole theological doctrine of\n\"possession,\" and especially the idea that insanity is the result of any\nsubtle spiritual influence. He simply put in practice the theory that\nlunacy is the result of bodily disease.\n\nIt is a curious matter for reflection, that but for this sway of the\ndestructive philosophy of the eighteenth century, and of the Terrorists\nduring the French Revolution, Pinel's blessed work would in all\nprobability have been thwarted, and he himself excommunicated for heresy\nand driven from his position. Doubtless the same efforts would have been\nput forth against him which the Church, a little earlier, had put forth\nagainst inoculation as a remedy for smallpox; but just at that time\nthe great churchmen had other things to think of besides crushing this\nparticular heretic: they were too much occupied in keeping their own\nheads from the guillotine to give attention to what was passing in the\nhead of Pinel. He was allowed to work in peace, and in a short time the\nreign of diabolism at Bicetre was ended. What the exorcisms and fetiches\nand prayers and processions, and drinking of holy water, and ringing of\nbells, had been unable to accomplish during eighteen hundred years, he\nachieved in a few months. His method was simple: for the brutality and\ncruelty which had prevailed up to that time, he substituted kindness and\ngentleness. The possessed were taken out of their dungeons, given sunny\nrooms, and allowed the liberty of pleasant ground for exercise; chains\nwere thrown aside. At the same time, the mental power of each patient\nwas developed by its fitting exercise, and disease was met with remedies\nsanctioned by experiment, observation, and reason. Thus was gained\none of the greatest, though one of the least known, triumphs of modern\nscience and humanity.\n\nThe results obtained by Pinel had an instant effect, not only in France\nbut throughout Europe: the news spread from hospital to hospital. At his\ndeath, Esquirol took up his work; and, in the place of the old training\nof judges, torturers, and executioners by theology to carry out its\nideas in cruelty, there was now trained a school of physicians to\ndevelop science in this field and carry out its decrees in mercy.(381)\n\n\n     (381) For the services of Tenon and his associates, and also for the\nwork of Pinel, see especially Esquirol, Des Maladies mentales, Paris,\n1838, vol. i, p. 35; and for the general subject, and the condition of\nthe hospitals at this period, see Dagron, as above.\n\n\nA similar evolution of better science and practice took place in\nEngland. In spite of the coldness, and even hostility, of the greater\nmen in the Established Church, and notwithstanding the scriptural\ndemonstrations of Wesley that the majority of the insane were possessed\nof devils, the scientific method steadily gathered strength. In 1750\nthe condition of the insane began to attract especial attention; it was\nfound that mad-houses were swayed by ideas utterly indefensible, and\nthat the practices engendered by these ideas were monstrous. As a rule,\nthe patients were immured in cells, and in many cases were chained to\nthe walls; in others, flogging and starvation played leading parts, and\nin some cases the patients were killed. Naturally enough, John Howard\ndeclared, in 1789, that he found in Constantinople a better insane\nasylum than the great St. Luke's Hospital in London. Well might he\ndo so; for, ever since Caliph Omar had protected and encouraged the\nscientific investigation of insanity by Paul of Aegina, the Moslem\ntreatment of the insane had been far more merciful than the system\nprevailing throughout Christendom.(382)\n\n\n     (382) See D. H. Tuke, as above, p. 110; also Trelat, as already cited.\n\n\nIn 1792--the same year in which Pinel began his great work in\nFrance--William Tuke began a similar work in England. There seems\nto have been no connection between these two reformers; each wrought\nindependently of the other, but the results arrived at were the same.\nSo, too, in the main, were their methods; and in the little house of\nWilliam Tuke, at York, began a better era for England.\n\nThe name which this little asylum received is a monument both of the old\nreign of cruelty and of the new reign of humanity. Every old name for\nsuch an asylum had been made odious and repulsive by ages of misery; in\na happy moment of inspiration Tuke's gentle Quaker wife suggested a new\nname; and, in accordance with this suggestion, the place became known as\na \"Retreat.\"\n\nFrom the great body of influential classes in church and state Tuke\nreceived little aid. The influence of the theological spirit was shown\nwhen, in that same year, Dr. Pangster published his Observations on\nMental Disorders, and, after displaying much ignorance as to the\ncauses and nature of insanity, summed up by saying piously, \"Here our\nresearches must stop, and we must declare that 'wonderful are the works\nof the Lord, and his ways past finding out.'\" Such seemed to be the view\nof the Church at large: though the new \"Retreat\" was at one of the\ntwo great ecclesiastical centres of England, we hear of no aid or\nencouragement from the Archbishop of York or from his clergy. Nor was\nthis the worst: the indirect influence of the theological habit of\nthought and ecclesiastical prestige was displayed in the Edinburgh\nReview. That great organ of opinion, not content with attacking Tuke,\npoured contempt upon his work, as well as on that of Pinel. A few of\nTuke's brother and sister Quakers seem to have been his only reliance;\nand in a letter regarding his efforts at that time he says, \"All men\nseem to desert me.\"(383)\n\n\n     (383) See D. H. Tuke, as above, p. 116-142, and 512; also the Edinburgh\nReview for April, 1803.\n\n\nIn this atmosphere of English conservative opposition or indifference\nthe work could not grow rapidly. As late as 1815, a member of Parliament\nstigmatized the insane asylums of England as the shame of the nation;\nand even as late as 1827, and in a few cases as late as 1850, there were\nrevivals of the old absurdity and brutality. Down to a late period,\nin the hospitals of St. Luke and Bedlam, long rows of the insane were\nchained to the walls of the corridors. But Gardner at Lincoln, Donnelly\nat Hanwell, and a new school of practitioners in mental disease, took up\nthe work of Tuke, and the victory in England was gained in practice as\nit had been previously gained in theory.\n\nThere need be no controversy regarding the comparative merits of these\ntwo benefactors of our race, Pinel and Tuke. They clearly did their\nthinking and their work independently of each other, and thereby each\nstrengthened the other and benefited mankind. All that remains to be\nsaid is, that while France has paid high honours to Pinel, as to one who\ndid much to free the world from one of its most cruel superstitions and\nto bring in a reign of humanity over a wide empire, England has as yet\nmade no fitting commemoration of her great benefactor in this field.\nYork Minster holds many tombs of men, of whom some were blessings\nto their fellow-beings, while some were but \"solemnly constituted\nimpostors\" and parasites upon the body politic; yet, to this hour, that\ngreat temple has received no consecration by a monument to the man who\ndid more to alleviate human misery than any other who has ever entered\nit.\n\nBut the place of these two men in history is secure. They stand with\nGrotius, Thomasius, and Beccaria--the men who in modern times have\ndone most to prevent unmerited sorrow. They were not, indeed, called\nto suffer like their great compeers; they were not obliged to see their\nwritings--among the most blessed gifts of God to man--condemned, as\nwere those of Grotius and Beccaria by the Catholic Church, and those\nof Thomasius by a large section of the Protestant Church; they were\nnot obliged to flee for their lives, as were Grotius and Thomasius; but\ntheir effort is none the less worthy. The French Revolution, indeed,\nsaved Pinel, and the decay of English ecclesiasticism gave Tuke his\nopportunity; but their triumphs are none the less among the glories of\nour race; for they were the first acknowledged victors in a struggle of\nscience for humanity which had lasted nearly two thousand years.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.  FROM DIABOLISM TO HYSTERIA.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE EPIDEMICS OF \"POSSESSION.\"\n\n\nIn the foregoing chapter I have sketched the triumph of science in\ndestroying the idea that individual lunatics are \"possessed by devils,\"\nin establishing the truth that insanity is physical disease, and in\nsubstituting for superstitious cruelties toward the insane a treatment\nmild, kindly, and based upon ascertained facts.\n\nThe Satan who had so long troubled individual men and women thus became\nextinct; henceforth his fossil remains only were preserved: they\nmay still be found in the sculptures and storied windows of medieval\nchurches, in sundry liturgies, and in popular forms of speech.\n\nBut another Satan still lived--a Satan who wrought on a larger\nscale--who took possession of multitudes. For, after this triumph of\nthe scientific method, there still remained a class of mental disorders\nwhich could not be treated in asylums, which were not yet fully\nexplained by science, and which therefore gave arguments of much\napparent strength to the supporters of the old theological view: these\nwere the epidemics of \"diabolic possession\" which for so many centuries\nafflicted various parts of the world.\n\nWhen obliged, then, to retreat from their old position in regard to\nindividual cases of insanity, the more conservative theologians promptly\nreferred to these epidemics as beyond the domain of science--as clear\nevidences of the power of Satan; and, as the basis of this view, they\ncited from the Old Testament frequent references to witchcraft,\nand, from the New Testament, St. Paul's question as to the possible\nbewitching of the Galatians, and the bewitching of the people of Samaria\nby Simon the Magician.\n\nNaturally, such leaders had very many adherents in that class, so large\nin all times, who find that\n\n\n\"To follow foolish precedents and wink With both our eyes, is easier\nthan to think.\"(384)\n\n\n     (384) As to eminent physicians' finding a stumbling-block in hysterical\nmania, see Kirchhoff's article, p. 351, cited in previous chapter.\n\n\nIt must be owned that their case seemed strong. Though in all human\nhistory, so far as it is closely known, these phenomena had appeared,\nand though every classical scholar could recall the wild orgies of\nthe priests, priestesses, and devotees of Dionysus and Cybele, and the\nepidemic of wild rage which took its name from some of these, the great\nfathers and doctors of the Church had left a complete answer to any\nscepticism based on these facts; they simply pointed to St. Paul's\ndeclaration that the gods of the heathen were devils: these examples,\nthen, could be transformed into a powerful argument for diabolic\npossession.(385)\n\n\n     (385) As to the Maenads, Corybantes, and the disease \"Corybantism,\"\nsee, for accessible and adequate statements, Smith's Dictionary of\nAntiquities and Lewis and Short's Lexicon; also reference in Hecker's\nEssays upon the Black Death and the Dancing Mania. For more complete\ndiscussion, see Semelaigne, L'Alienation mentale dans l'Antiquite,\nParis, 1869.\n\n\nBut it was more especially the epidemics of diabolism in medieval and\nmodern times which gave strength to the theological view, and from these\nI shall present a chain of typical examples.\n\nAs early as the eleventh century we find clear accounts of diabolical\npossession taking the form of epidemics of raving, jumping, dancing,\nand convulsions, the greater number of the sufferers being women and\nchildren. In a time so rude, accounts of these manifestations would\nrarely receive permanent record; but it is very significant that even at\nthe beginning of the eleventh century we hear of them at the extremes\nof Europe--in northern Germany and in southern Italy. At various times\nduring that century we get additional glimpses of these exhibitions, but\nit is not until the beginning of the thirteenth century that we have a\nrenewal of them on a large scale. In 1237, at Erfurt, a jumping disease\nand dancing mania afflicted a hundred children, many of whom died in\nconsequence; it spread through the whole region, and fifty years later\nwe hear of it in Holland.\n\nBut it was the last quarter of the fourteenth century that saw its\ngreatest manifestations. There was abundant cause for them. It was a\ntime of oppression, famine, and pestilence: the crusading spirit, having\nrun its course, had been succeeded by a wild, mystical fanaticism;\nthe most frightful plague in human history--the Black Death--was\ndepopulating whole regions--reducing cities to villages, and filling\nEurope with that strange mixture of devotion and dissipation which we\nalways note during the prevalence of deadly epidemics on a large scale.\n\nIt was in this ferment of religious, moral, and social disease that\nthere broke out in 1374, in the lower Rhine region, the greatest,\nperhaps, of all manifestations of \"possession\"--an epidemic of dancing,\njumping, and wild raving. The cures resorted to seemed on the whole to\nintensify the disease: the afflicted continued dancing for hours, until\nthey fell in utter exhaustion. Some declared that they felt as if bathed\nin blood, some saw visions, some prophesied.\n\nInto this mass of \"possession\" there was also clearly poured a current\nof scoundrelism which increased the disorder.\n\nThe immediate source of these manifestations seems to have been the wild\nrevels of St. John's Day. In those revels sundry old heathen ceremonies\nhad been perpetuated, but under a nominally Christian form: wild\nBacchanalian dances had thus become a semi-religious ceremonial. The\nreligious and social atmosphere was propitious to the development of\nthe germs of diabolic influence vitalized in these orgies, and they\nwere scattered far and wide through large tracts of the Netherlands\nand Germany, and especially through the whole region of the Rhine. At\nCologne we hear of five hundred afflicted at once; at Metz of eleven\nhundred dancers in the streets; at Strasburg of yet more painful\nmanifestations; and from these and other cities they spread through the\nvillages and rural districts.\n\nThe great majority of the sufferers were women, but there were many men,\nand especially men whose occupations were sedentary. Remedies were tried\nupon a large scale-exorcisms first, but especially pilgrimages to the\nshrine of St. Vitus. The exorcisms accomplished so little that popular\nfaith in them grew small, and the main effect of the pilgrimages\nseemed to be to increase the disorder by subjecting great crowds to\nthe diabolic contagion. Yet another curative means was seen in the\nflagellant processions--vast crowds of men, women, and children who\nwandered through the country, screaming, praying, beating themselves\nwith whips, imploring the Divine mercy and the intervention of\nSt. Vitus. Most fearful of all the main attempts at cure were the\npersecutions of the Jews. A feeling had evidently spread among\nthe people at large that the Almighty was filled with wrath at\nthe toleration of his enemies, and might be propitiated by their\ndestruction: in the principal cities and villages of Germany, then, the\nJews were plundered, tortured, and murdered by tens of thousands. No\ndoubt that, in all this, greed was united with fanaticism; but the\nargument of fanaticism was simple and cogent; the dart which pierced the\nbreast of Israel at that time was winged and pointed from its own\nsacred books: the biblical argument was the same used in various ages\nto promote persecution; and this was, that the wrath of the Almighty\nwas stirred against those who tolerated his enemies, and that because\nof this toleration the same curse had now come upon Europe which the\nprophet Samuel had denounced against Saul for showing mercy to the\nenemies of Jehovah.\n\nIt is but just to say that various popes and kings exerted themselves to\ncheck these cruelties. Although the argument of Samuel to Saul was used\nwith frightful effect two hundred years later by a most conscientious\npope in spurring on the rulers of France to extirpate the Huguenots, the\npapacy in the fourteenth century stood for mercy to the Jews. But\neven this intervention was long without effect; the tide of popular\nsuperstition had become too strong to be curbed even by the spiritual\nand temporal powers.(386)\n\n\n     (386) See Wellhausen, article Israel, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica,\nninth edition; also the reprint of it in his History of Israel, London,\n1885, p. 546. On the general subject of the demoniacal epidemics, see\nIsensee, Geschichte der Medicin, vol. i, pp. 260 et seq.; also Hecker's\nessay. As to the history of Saul, as a curious landmark in the general\ndevelopment of the subject, see The Case of Saul, showing that his\nDisorder was a Real Spiritual Possession, by Granville Sharp, London,\n1807, passim. As to the citation of Saul's case by the reigning Pope to\nspur on the French kings against the Huguenots, I hope to give a list of\nauthorities in a future chapter on The Church and International Law. For\nthe general subject, with interesting details, see Laurent, Etudes sur\nl'Histoire de l'Humanities. See also Maury, La Magie et l'Astrologie\ndans l'Antiquite et au Moyen Age.\n\n\nAgainst this overwhelming current science for many generations could\ndo nothing. Throughout the whole of the fifteenth century physicians\nappeared to shun the whole matter. Occasionally some more thoughtful\nman ventured to ascribe some phase of the disease to natural causes;\nbut this was an unpopular doctrine, and evidently dangerous to those who\ndeveloped it.\n\nYet, in the beginning of the sixteenth century, cases of \"possession\" on\na large scale began to be brought within the scope of medical research,\nand the man who led in this evolution of medical science was Paracelsus.\nHe it was who first bade modern Europe think for a moment upon the idea\nthat these diseases are inflicted neither by saints nor demons, and that\nthe \"dancing possession\" is simply a form of disease, of which the cure\nmay be effected by proper remedies and regimen.\n\nParacelsus appears to have escaped any serious interference: it took\nsome time, perhaps, for the theological leaders to understand that he\nhad \"let a new idea loose upon the planet,\" but they soon understood it,\nand their course was simple. For about fifty years the new idea was well\nkept under; but in 1563 another physician, John Wier, of Cleves, revived\nit at much risk to his position and reputation.(387)\n\n\n     (387) For Paracelsus, see Isensee, vol. i, chap. xi; also Pettigrew,\nSuperstitions connected with the History and Practice of Medicine and\nSurgery, London, 1844, introductory chapter. For Wier, see authorities\ngiven in my previous chapter.\n\n\nAlthough the new idea was thus resisted, it must have taken some hold\nupon thoughtful men, for we find that in the second half of the same\ncentury the St. Vitus's dance and forms of demoniacal possession akin\nto it gradually diminished in frequency and were sometimes treated as\ndiseases. In the seventeenth century, so far as the north of Europe is\nconcerned, these displays of \"possession\" on a great scale had almost\nentirely ceased; here and there cases appeared, but there was no longer\nthe wild rage extending over great districts and afflicting thousands of\npeople. Yet it was, as we shall see, in this same seventeenth century,\nin the last expiring throes of this superstition, that it led to the\nworst acts of cruelty.(388)\n\n\n     (388) As to this diminution of widespread epidemic at the end of the\nsixteenth century, see citations from Schenck von Grafenberg in Hecker,\nas above; also Horst.\n\n\nWhile this Satanic influence had been exerted on so great a scale\nthroughout northern Europe, a display strangely like it, yet strangely\nunlike it, had been going on in Italy. There, too, epidemics of dancing\nand jumping seized groups and communities; but they were attributed to\na physical cause--the theory being that the bite of a tarantula in\nsome way provoked a supernatural intervention, of which dancing was the\naccompaniment and cure.\n\nIn the middle of the sixteenth century Fracastoro made an evident\nimpression on the leaders of Italian opinion by using medical means in\nthe cure of the possessed; though it is worthy of note that the medicine\nwhich he applied successfully was such as we now know could not by\nany direct effects of its own accomplish any cure: whatever effect it\nexerted was wrought upon the imagination of the sufferer. This form of\n\"possession,\" then, passed out of the supernatural domain, and\nbecame known as \"tarantism.\" Though it continued much longer than the\ncorresponding manifestations in northern Europe, by the beginning of\nthe eighteenth century it had nearly disappeared; and, though special\nmanifestations of it on a small scale still break out occasionally, its\nmain survival is the \"tarantella,\" which the traveller sees danced at\nNaples as a catchpenny assault upon his purse.(389)\n\n\n     (389) See Hecker's Epidemics of the Middle Ages, pp. 87-104; also\nextracts and observations in Carpenter's Mental Physiology, London,\n1888, pp. 321-315; also Maudsley, Pathology of Mind, pp. 73 and\nfollowing.\n\n\nBut, long before this form of \"possession\" had begun to disappear, there\nhad arisen new manifestations, apparently more inexplicable. As the\nfirst great epidemics of dancing and jumping had their main origin in a\nreligious ceremony, so various new forms had their principal source in\nwhat were supposed to be centres of religious life--in the convents, and\nmore especially in those for women.\n\nOut of many examples we may take a few as typical.\n\nIn the fifteenth century the chroniclers assure us that, an inmate of\na German nunnery having been seized with a passion for biting her\ncompanions, her mania spread until most, if not all, of her fellow-nuns\nbegan to bite each other; and that this passion for biting passed from\nconvent to convent into other parts of Germany, into Holland, and even\nacross the Alps into Italy.\n\nSo, too, in a French convent, when a nun began to mew like a cat,\nothers began mewing; the disease spread, and was only checked by severe\nmeasures.(390)\n\n\n     (390) See citation from Zimmermann's Solitude, in Carpenter, pp. 34,\n314.\n\n\nIn the sixteenth century the Protestant Reformation gave new force to\nwitchcraft persecutions in Germany, the new Church endeavouring to show\nthat in zeal and power she exceeded the old. But in France influential\nopinion seemed not so favourable to these forms of diabolical influence,\nespecially after the publication of Montaigne's Essays, in 1580, had\nspread a sceptical atmosphere over many leading minds.\n\nIn 1588 occurred in France a case which indicates the growth of this\nsceptical tendency even in the higher regions of the french Church,\nIn that year Martha Brossier, a country girl, was, it was claimed,\npossessed of the devil. The young woman was to all appearance under\ndirect Satanic influence. She roamed about, begging that the demon\nmight be cast out of her, and her imprecations and blasphemies brought\nconsternation wherever she went. Myth-making began on a large scale;\nstories grew and sped. The Capuchin monks thundered from the pulpit\nthroughout France regarding these proofs of the power of Satan: the\nalarm spread, until at last even jovial, sceptical King Henry IV was\ndisquieted, and the reigning Pope was asked to take measures to ward off\nthe evil.\n\nFortunately, there then sat in the episcopal chair of Angers a prelate\nwho had apparently imbibed something of Montaigne's scepticism--Miron;\nand, when the case was brought before him, he submitted it to the most\ntime-honoured of sacred tests. He first brought into the girl's presence\ntwo bowls, one containing holy water, the other ordinary spring water,\nbut allowed her to draw a false inference regarding the contents of\neach: the result was that at the presentation of the holy water the\ndevils were perfectly calm, but when tried with the ordinary water they\nthrew Martha into convulsions.\n\nThe next experiment made by the shrewd bishop was to similar purpose.\nHe commanded loudly that a book of exorcisms be brought, and under a\nprevious arrangement, his attendants brought him a copy of Virgil. No\nsooner had the bishop begun to read the first line of the Aeneid than\nthe devils threw Martha into convulsions. On another occasion a Latin\ndictionary, which she had reason to believe was a book of exorcisms,\nproduced a similar effect.\n\nAlthough the bishop was thereby led to pronounce the whole matter a\nmixture of insanity and imposture, the Capuchin monks denounced this\nview as godless. They insisted that these tests really proved the\npresence of Satan--showing his cunning in covering up the proofs of his\nexistence. The people at large sided with their preachers, and Martha\nwas taken to Paris, where various exorcisms were tried, and the Parisian\nmob became as devoted to her as they had been twenty years before to\nthe murderers of the Huguenots, as they became two centuries later to\nRobespierre, and as they more recently were to General Boulanger.\n\nBut Bishop Miron was not the only sceptic. The Cardinal de Gondi,\nArchbishop of Paris, charged the most eminent physicians of the city,\nand among them Riolan, to report upon the case. Various examinations\nwere made, and the verdict was that Martha was simply a hysterical\nimpostor. Thanks, then, to medical science, and to these two enlightened\necclesiastics who summoned its aid, what fifty or a hundred years\nearlier would have been the centre of a widespread epidemic of\npossession was isolated, and hindered from producing a national\ncalamity.\n\nIn the following year this healthful growth of scepticism continued.\nFourteen persons had been condemned to death for sorcery, but public\nopinion was strong enough to secure a new examination by a special\ncommission, which reported that \"the prisoners stood more in need of\nmedicine than of punishment,\" and they were released.(391)\n\n\n     (391) For the Brossier case, see Clameil, La Folie, tome i, livre 3,\nc. 2. For the cases at Tours, see Madden, Phantasmata, vol. i, pp. 309,\n310.\n\n\nBut during the seventeenth century, the clergy generally having exerted\nthemselves heroically to remove this \"evil heart of unbelief\" so largely\ndue to Montaigne, a theological reaction was brought on not only in\nFrance but in all parts of the Christian world, and the belief in\ndiabolic possession, though certainly dying, flickered up hectic, hot,\nand malignant through the whole century. In 1611 we have a typical case\nat Aix. An epidemic of possession having occurred there, Gauffridi,\na man of note, was burned at the stake as the cause of the trouble.\nMichaelis, one of the priestly exorcists, declared that he had driven\nout sixty-five hundred devils from one of the possessed. Similar\nepidemics occurred in various parts of the world.(392)\n\n\n     (392) See Dagron, chap. ii.\n\n\nTwenty years later a far more striking case occurred at Loudun, in\nwestern France, where a convent of Ursuline nuns was \"afflicted by\ndemons.\"\n\nThe convent was filled mainly with ladies of noble birth, who, not\nhaving sufficient dower to secure husbands, had, according to the common\nmethod of the time, been made nuns.\n\nIt is not difficult to understand that such an imprisonment of a\nmultitude of women of different ages would produce some woeful effects.\nAny reader of Manzoni's Promessi Sposi, with its wonderful portrayal of\nthe feelings and doings of a noble lady kept in a convent against\nher will, may have some idea of the rage and despair which must have\ninspired such assemblages in which pride, pauperism, and the attempted\nsuppression of the instincts of humanity wrought a fearful work.\n\nWhat this work was may be seen throughout the Middle Ages; but it is\nespecially in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that we find it\nfrequently taking shape in outbursts of diabolic possession.(393)\n\n\n     (393) On monasteries as centres of \"possession\" and hysterical\nepidemics, see Figuier, Le Merveilleux, p. 40 and following; also\nCalmeil, Langin, Kirchhoff, Maudsley, and others. On similar results\nfrom excitement at Protestant meetings in Scotland and camp meetings in\nEngland and America, see Hecker's Essay, concluding chapters.\n\n\nIn this case at Loudun, the usual evidences of Satanic influence\nappeared. One after another of the inmates fell into convulsions: some\nshowed physical strength apparently supernatural; some a keenness\nof perception quite as surprising; many howled forth blasphemies and\nobscenities.\n\nNear the convent dwelt a priest--Urbain Grandier--noted for his\nbrilliancy as a writer and preacher, but careless in his way of living.\nSeveral of the nuns had evidently conceived a passion for him, and in\ntheir wild rage and despair dwelt upon his name. In the same city, too,\nwere sundry ecclesiastics and laymen with whom Grandier had fallen\ninto petty neighbourhood quarrels, and some of these men held the main\ncontrol of the convent.\n\nOut of this mixture of \"possession\" within the convent and malignity\nwithout it came a charge that Grandier had bewitched the young women.\n\nThe Bishop of Poictiers took up the matter. A trial was held, and it\nwas noted that, whenever Grandier appeared, the \"possessed\" screamed,\nshrieked, and showed every sign of diabolic influence. Grandier fought\ndesperately, and appealed to the Archbishop of Bordeaux, De Sourdis. The\narchbishop ordered a more careful examination, and, on separating\nthe nuns from each other and from certain monks who had been bitterly\nhostile to Grandier, such glaring discrepancies were found in their\ntestimony that the whole accusation was brought to naught.\n\nBut the enemies of Satan and of Grandier did not rest. Through their\nefforts Cardinal Richelieu, who appears to have had an old grudge\nagainst Grandier, sent a representative, Laubardemont, to make another\ninvestigation. Most frightful scenes were now enacted: the whole convent\nresounded more loudly than ever with shrieks, groans, howling, and\ncursing, until finally Grandier, though even in the agony of torture he\nrefused to confess the crimes that his enemies suggested, was hanged and\nburned.\n\nFrom this centre the epidemic spread: multitudes of women and men were\naffected by it in various convents; several of the great cities of the\nsouth and west of France came under the same influence; the \"possession\"\nwent on for several years longer and then gradually died out, though\nscattered cases have occurred from that day to this.(394)\n\n\n     (394) Among the many statements of Grandier's case, one of the best in\nEnglish may be found in Trollope's Sketches from French History, London,\n1878. See also Bazin, Louis XIII.\n\n\nA few years later we have an even more striking example among the French\nProtestants. The Huguenots, who had taken refuge in the mountains of\nthe Cevennes to escape persecution, being pressed more and more by\nthe cruelties of Louis XIV, began to show signs of a high degree of\nreligious exaltation. Assembled as they were for worship in wild and\ndesert places, an epidemic broke out among them, ascribed by them to\nthe Almighty, but by their opponents to Satan. Men, women, and children\npreached and prophesied. Large assemblies were seized with trembling.\nSome underwent the most terrible tortures without showing any signs of\nsuffering. Marshal de Villiers, who was sent against them, declared that\nhe saw a town in which all the women and girls, without exception,\nwere possessed of the devil, and ran leaping and screaming through the\nstreets. Cases like this, inexplicable to the science of the time, gave\nrenewed strength to the theological view.(395)\n\n\n     (395) See Bersot, Mesmer et la Magnetisme animal, third edition, Paris,\n1864, pp. 95 et seq.\n\n\nToward the end of the same century similar manifestations began to\nappear on a large scale in America.\n\nThe life of the early colonists in New England was such as to give\nrapid growth to the germs of the doctrine of possession brought from\nthe mother country. Surrounded by the dark pine forests; having as their\nneighbours Indians, who were more than suspected of being children of\nSatan; harassed by wild beasts apparently sent by the powers of evil\nto torment the elect; with no varied literature to while away the\nlong winter evenings; with few amusements save neighbourhood quarrels;\ndwelling intently on every text of Scripture which supported their\ngloomy theology, and adopting its most literal interpretation, it is not\nstrange that they rapidly developed ideas regarding the darker side of\nnature.(396)\n\n\n     (396) For the idea that America before the Pilgims had been especially\ngiven over to Satan, see the literature of the early Puritan period,\nand especially the poetry of Wigglesworth, treated in Tylor's History of\nAmerican Literature, vol. ii, p. 25 et seq.\n\n\nThis fear of witchcraft received a powerful stimulus from the treatises\nof learned men. Such works, coming from Europe, which was at that\ntime filled with the superstition, acted powerfully upon conscientious\npreachers, and were brought by them to bear upon the people at large.\nNaturally, then, throughout the latter half of the seventeenth century\nwe find scattered cases of diabolic possession. At Boston, Springfield,\nHartford, Groton, and other towns, cases occurred, and here and there we\nhear of death-sentences.\n\nIn the last quarter of the seventeenth century the fruit of these ideas\nbegan to ripen. In the year 1684 Increase Mather published his book,\nRemarkable Providences, laying stress upon diabolic possession and\nwitchcraft. This book, having been sent over to England, exercised an\ninfluence there, and came back with the approval of no less a man than\nRichard Baxter: by this its power at home was increased.\n\nIn 1688 a poor family in Boston was afflicted by demons: four children,\nthe eldest thirteen years of age, began leaping and barking like dogs or\npurring like cats, and complaining of being pricked, pinched, and cut;\nand, to help the matter, an old Irishwoman was tried and executed.\n\nAll this belief might have passed away like a troubled dream had it not\nbecome incarnate in a strong man. This man was Cotton Mather, the son of\nIncrease Mather. Deeply religious, possessed of excellent abilities, a\ngreat scholar, anxious to promote the welfare of his flock in this world\nand in the next, he was far in advance of ecclesiastics generally on\nnearly all the main questions between science and theology. He came out\nof his earlier superstition regarding the divine origin of the Hebrew\npunctuation; he opposed the old theologic idea regarding the taking of\ninterest for money; he favoured inoculation as a preventive of smallpox\nwhen a multitude of clergymen and laymen opposed it; he accepted\nthe Newtonian astronomy despite the outcries against its \"atheistic\ntendency\"; he took ground against the time-honoured dogma that comets\nare \"signs and wonders.\" He had, indeed, some of the defects of his\nqualities, and among them pedantic vanity, pride of opinion, and love\nof power; but he was for his time remarkably liberal and undoubtedly\nsincere. He had thrown off a large part of his father's theology, but\none part of it he could not throw off: he was one of the best biblical\nscholars of his time, and he could not break away from the fact that\nthe sacred Scriptures explicitly recognise witchcraft and demoniacal\npossession as realities, and enjoin against witchcraft the penalty\nof death. Therefore it was that in 1689 he published his Memorable\nProvidences relating to Witchcrafts and Possessions. The book, according\nto its title-page, was \"recommended by the Ministers of Boston and\nCharleston,\" and its stories soon became the familiar reading of men,\nwomen, and children throughout New England.\n\nOut of all these causes thus brought to bear upon public opinion\nbegan in 1692 a new outbreak of possession, which is one of the most\ninstructive in history. The Rev. Samuel Parris was the minister of\nthe church in Salem, and no pope ever had higher ideas of his own\ninfallibility, no bishop a greater love of ceremony, no inquisitor a\ngreater passion for prying and spying.(397)\n\n\n     (397) For curious examples of this, see Upham's History of Salem\nWitchcraft, vol. i.\n\n\nBefore long Mr. Parris had much upon his hands. Many of his hardy,\nindependent parishioners disliked his ways. Quarrels arose. Some of the\nleading men of the congregation were pitted against him. The previous\nminister, George Burroughs, had left the germs of troubles and\nquarrels, and to these were now added new complications arising from the\nassumptions of Parris. There were innumerable wranglings and lawsuits;\nin fact, all the essential causes for Satanic interference which we saw\nat work in and about the monastery at Loudun, and especially the turmoil\nof a petty village where there is no intellectual activity, and\nwhere men and women find their chief substitute for it in squabbles,\nreligious, legal, political, social, and personal.\n\nIn the darkened atmosphere thus charged with the germs of disease it\nwas suddenly discovered that two young girls in the family of Mr. Parris\nwere possessed of devils: they complained of being pinched, pricked,\nand cut, fell into strange spasms and made strange speeches--showing the\nsigns of diabolic possession handed down in fireside legends or dwelt\nupon in popular witch literature--and especially such as had lately been\ndescribed by Cotton Mather in his book on Memorable Providences. The\ntwo girls, having been brought by Mr. Parris and others to tell who\nhad bewitched them, first charged an old Indian woman, and the poor old\nIndian husband was led to join in the charge. This at once afforded\nnew scope for the activity of Mr. Parris. Magnifying his office, he\nimmediately began making a great stir in Salem and in the country round\nabout. Two magistrates were summoned. With them came a crowd, and a\ncourt was held at the meeting-house. The scenes which then took place\nwould have been the richest of farces had they not led to events so\ntragical. The possessed went into spasms at the approach of those\ncharged with witchcraft, and when the poor old men and women attempted\nto attest their innocence they were overwhelmed with outcries by the\npossessed, quotations of Scripture by the ministers, and denunciations\nby the mob. One especially--Ann Putnam, a child of twelve years--showed\ngreat precocity and played a striking part in the performances. The\nmania spread to other children; and two or three married women also,\nseeing the great attention paid to the afflicted, and influenced by that\nepidemic of morbid imitation which science now recognises in all such\ncases, soon became similarly afflicted, and in their turn made charges\nagainst various persons. The Indian woman was flogged by her master, Mr.\nParris, until she confessed relations with Satan; and others were forced\nor deluded into confession. These hysterical confessions, the results\nof unbearable torture, or the reminiscences of dreams, which had been\nprompted by the witch legends and sermons of the period, embraced such\nfacts as flying through the air to witch gatherings, partaking of witch\nsacraments, signing a book presented by the devil, and submitting to\nSatanic baptism. The possessed had begun with charging their possession\nupon poor and vagrant old women, but ere long, emboldened by their\nsuccess, they attacked higher game, struck at some of the foremost\npeople of the region, and did not cease until several of these were\ncondemned to death, and every man, woman, and child brought under a\nreign of terror. Many fled outright, and one of the foremost citizens of\nSalem went constantly armed, and kept one of his horses saddled in the\nstable to flee if brought under accusation. The hysterical ingenuity of\nthe possessed women grew with their success. They insisted that they saw\ndevils prompting the accused to defend themselves in court. Did one of\nthe accused clasp her hands in despair, the possessed clasped theirs;\ndid the accused, in appealing to Heaven, make any gesture, the possessed\nsimultaneously imitated it; did the accused in weariness drop her head,\nthe possessed dropped theirs, and declared that the witch was trying\nto break their necks. The court-room resounded with groans, shrieks,\nprayers, and curses; judges, jury, and people were aghast, and even the\naccused were sometimes thus led to believe in their own guilt.\n\nVery striking in all these cases was the alloy of frenzy with trickery.\nIn most of the madness there was method. Sundry witches charged by the\npossessed had been engaged in controversy with the Salem church people.\nOthers of the accused had quarrelled with Mr. Parris. Still others had\nbeen engaged in old lawsuits against persons more or less connected with\nthe girls. One of the most fearful charges, which cost the life of a\nnoble and lovely woman, arose undoubtedly from her better style of dress\nand living. Old slumbering neighbourhood or personal quarrels bore in\nthis way a strange fruitage of revenge; for the cardinal doctrine of a\nfanatic's creed is that his enemies are the enemies of God.\n\nAny person daring to hint the slightest distrust of the proceedings was\nin danger of being immediately brought under accusation of a league with\nSatan. Husbands and children were thus brought to the gallows for daring\nto disbelieve these charges against their wives and mothers. Some of\nthe clergy were accused for endeavouring to save members of their\nchurches.(398)\n\n\n     (398) This is admirably brought out by Upham, and the lawyerlike\nthoroughness with which he has examined all these hidden springs of the\ncharges is one of the main things which render his book one of the\nmost valuable contributions to the history and philosophy of demoniacal\npossession ever written.\n\n\nOne poor woman was charged with \"giving a look toward the great\nmeeting-house of Salem, and immediately a demon entered the house and\ntore down a part of it.\" This cause for the falling of a bit of poorly\nnailed wainscoting seemed perfectly satisfactory to Dr. Cotton Mather,\nas well as to the judge and jury, and she was hanged, protesting her\ninnocence. Still another lady, belonging to one of the most respected\nfamilies of the region, was charged with the crime of witchcraft. The\nchildren were fearfully afflicted whenever she appeared near them. It\nseemed never to occur to any one that a bitter old feud between the\nRev. Mr. Parris and the family of the accused might have prejudiced the\nchildren and directed their attention toward the woman. No account was\nmade of the fact that her life had been entirely blameless; and yet,\nin view of the wretched insufficiency of proof, the jury brought in a\nverdict of not guilty. As they brought in this verdict, all the children\nbegan to shriek and scream, until the court committed the monstrous\nwrong of causing her to be indicted anew. In order to warrant this, the\njudge referred to one perfectly natural and harmless expression made\nby the woman when under examination. The jury at last brought her in\nguilty. She was condemned; and, having been brought into the church\nheavily ironed, was solemnly excommunicated and delivered over to Satan\nby the minister. Some good sense still prevailed, and the Governor\nreprieved her; but ecclesiastical pressure and popular clamour were too\npowerful. The Governor was induced to recall his reprieve, and she was\nexecuted, protesting her innocence and praying for her enemies.(399)\n\n\n     (399) See Drake, The Witchcraft Delusion in New England, vol. iii, pp.\n34 et seq.\n\n\nAnother typical case was presented. The Rev. Mr. Burroughs, against whom\nconsiderable ill will had been expressed, and whose petty parish quarrel\nwith the powerful Putnam family had led to his dismissal from his\nministry, was named by the possessed as one of those who plagued them,\none of the most influential among the afflicted being Ann Putnam. Mr.\nBurroughs had led a blameless life, the main thing charged against him\nby the Putnams being that he insisted strenuously that his wife should\nnot go about the parish talking of her own family matters. He was\ncharged with afflicting the children, convicted, and executed. At the\nlast moment he repeated the Lord's Prayer solemnly and fully, which\nit was supposed that no sorcerer could do, and this, together with his\nstraightforward Christian utterances at the execution, shook the faith\nof many in the reality of diabolic possession. Ere long it was known\nthat one of the girls had acknowledged that she had belied some persons\nwho had been executed, and especially Mr. Burroughs, and that she had\nbegged forgiveness; but this for a time availed nothing. Persons who\nwould not confess were tied up and put to a sort of torture which was\neffective in securing new revelations.\n\nIn the case of Giles Corey the horrors of the persecution culminated.\nSeeing that his doom was certain, and wishing to preserve his family\nfrom attainder and their property from confiscation, he refused to\nplead. Though eighty years of age, he was therefore pressed to death,\nand when, in his last agonies, his tongue was pressed out of his mouth,\nthe sheriff with his walking-stick thrust it back again.\n\nEverything was made to contribute to the orthodox view of possession. On\none occasion, when a cart conveying eight condemned persons to the place\nof execution stuck fast in the mire, some of the possessed declared that\nthey saw the devil trying to prevent the punishment of his associates.\nConfessions of witchcraft abounded; but the way in which these\nconfessions were obtained is touchingly exhibited in a statement\nafterward made by several women. In explaining the reasons why, when\ncharged with afflicting sick persons, they made a false confession, they\nsaid:\n\n\"... By reason of that suddain surprizal, we knowing ourselves altogether\nInnocent of that Crime, we were all exceedingly astonished and amazed,\nand consternated and affrighted even out of our Reason; and our nearest\nand dearest Relations, seeing us in that dreadful condition, and knowing\nour great danger, apprehending that there was no other way to save our\nlives,... out of tender... pitty persuaded us to confess what we did\nconfess. And indeed that Confession, that it is said we made, was no\nother than what was suggested to us by some Gentlemen; they telling us,\nthat we were Witches, and they knew it, and we knew it, and they\nknew that we knew it, which made us think that it was so; and our\nunderstanding, our reason, and our faculties almost gone, we were not\ncapable of judging our condition; as also the hard measures they used\nwith us, rendered us uncapable of making our Defence, but said anything\nand everything which they desired, and most of what we said, was in\neffect a consenting to what they said....\"(400)\n\n\n     (400) See Calef, in Drake, vol ii; also Upham.\n\n\nCase after case, in which hysteria, fanaticism, cruelty, injustice, and\ntrickery played their part, was followed up to the scaffold. In a short\ntime twenty persons had been put to a cruel death, and the number of\nthe accused grew larger and larger. The highest position and the noblest\ncharacter formed no barrier. Daily the possessed became more bold, more\ntricky, and more wild. No plea availed anything. In behalf of several\nwomen, whose lives had been of the purest and gentlest, petitions were\npresented, but to no effect. A scriptural text was always ready to aid\nin the repression of mercy: it was remembered that \"Satan himself is\ntransformed into an angel of light,\" and above all resounded the Old\nTestament injunction, which had sent such multitudes in Europe to the\ntorture-chamber and the stake, \"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.\"\n\nSuch clergymen as Noyes, Parris, and Mather, aided by such judges\nas Stoughton and Hathorn, left nothing undone to stimulate these\nproceedings. The great Cotton Mather based upon this outbreak of disease\nthus treated his famous book, Wonders of the Invisible World, thanking\nGod for the triumphs over Satan thus gained at Salem; and his book\nreceived the approbation of the Governor of the Province, the President\nof Harvard College, and various eminent theologians in Europe as well as\nin America.\n\nBut, despite such efforts as these, observation, and thought upon\nobservation, which form the beginning of all true science, brought in a\nnew order of things. The people began to fall away. Justice Bradstreet,\nhaving committed thirty or forty persons, became aroused to the\nabsurdity of the whole matter; the minister of Andover had the good\nsense to resist the theological view; even so high a personage as Lady\nPhips, the wife of the Governor, began to show lenity.\n\nEach of these was, in consequence of this disbelief, charged with\ncollusion with Satan; but such charges seemed now to lose their force.\n\nIn the midst of all this delusion and terrorism stood Cotton Mather firm\nas ever. His efforts to uphold the declining superstition were heroic.\nBut he at last went one step too far. Being himself possessed of a mania\nfor myth-making and wonder-mongering, and having described a case\nof witchcraft with possibly greater exaggeration than usual, he was\nconfronted by Robert Calef. Calef was a Boston merchant, who appears\nto have united the good sense of a man of business to considerable\nshrewdness in observation, power in thought, and love for truth; and\nhe began writing to Mather and others, to show the weak points in the\nsystem. Mather, indignant that a person so much his inferior dared\ndissent from his opinion, at first affected to despise Calef; but, as\nCalef pressed him more and more closely, Mather denounced him, calling\nhim among other things \"A Coal from Hell.\" All to no purpose: Calef\nfastened still more firmly upon the flanks of the great theologian.\nThought and reason now began to resume their sway.\n\nThe possessed having accused certain men held in very high respect,\ndoubts began to dawn upon the community at large. Here was the\nrepetition of that which had set men thinking in the German bishoprics\nwhen those under trial for witchcraft there had at last, in their\ndesperation or madness, charged the very bishops and the judges upon\nthe bench with sorcery. The party of reason grew stronger. The Rev. Mr.\nParris was soon put upon the defensive: for some of the possessed began\nto confess that they had accused people wrongfully. Herculean efforts\nwere made by certain of the clergy and devout laity to support the\ndeclining belief, but the more thoughtful turned more and more against\nit; jurymen prominent in convictions solemnly retracted their verdicts\nand publicly craved pardon of God and man. Most striking of all was the\ncase of Justice Sewall. A man of the highest character, he had in view\nof authority deduced from Scripture and the principles laid down by the\ngreat English judges, unhesitatingly condemned the accused; but reason\nnow dawned upon him. He looked back and saw the baselessness of the\nwhole proceedings, and made a public statement of his errors. His diary\ncontains many passages showing deep contrition, and ever afterward, to\nthe end of his life, he was wont, on one day in the year, to enter into\nsolitude, and there remain all the day long in fasting, prayer, and\npenitence.\n\nChief-Justice Stoughton never yielded. To the last he lamented the \"evil\nspirit of unbelief\" which was thwarting the glorious work of freeing New\nEngland from demons.\n\nThe church of Salem solemnly revoked the excommunications of the\ncondemned and drove Mr. Parris from the pastorate. Cotton Mather\npassed his last years in groaning over the decline of the faith and the\ningratitude of a people for whom he had done so much. Very significant\nis one of his complaints, since it shows the evolution of a more\nscientific mode of thought abroad as well as at home: he laments in his\ndiary that English publishers gladly printed Calef's book, but would no\nlonger publish his own, and he declares this \"an attack upon the glory\nof the Lord.\"\n\nAbout forty years after the New England epidemic of \"possession\"\noccurred another typical series of phenomena in France. In 1727 there\ndied at the French capital a simple and kindly ecclesiastic, the\nArchdeacon Paris. He had lived a pious, Christian life, and was endeared\nto multitudes by his charity; unfortunately, he had espoused the\ndoctrine of Jansen on grace and free will, and, though he remained in\nthe Gallican Church, he and those who thought like him were opposed by\nthe Jesuits, and finally condemned by a papal bull.\n\nHis remains having been buried in the cemetery of St. Medard, the\nJansenists flocked to say their prayers at his grave, and soon miracles\nbegan to be wrought there. Ere long they were multiplied. The sick being\nbrought and laid upon the tombstone, many were cured. Wonderful stories\nwere attested by eye-witnesses. The myth-making tendency--the passion\nfor developing, enlarging, and spreading tales of wonder--came into full\nplay and was given free course.\n\nMany thoughtful men satisfied themselves of the truth of these\nrepresentations. One of the foremost English scholars came over,\nexamined into them, and declared that there could be no doubt as to the\nreality of the cures.\n\nThis state of things continued for about four years, when, in 1731, more\nviolent effects showed themselves. Sundry persons approaching the tomb\nwere thrown into convulsions, hysterics, and catalepsy; these diseases\nspread, became epidemic, and soon multitudes were similarly afflicted.\nBoth religious parties made the most of these cases. In vain did such\ngreat authorities in medical science as Hecquet and Lorry attribute the\nwhole to natural causes: the theologians on both sides declared them\nsupernatural--the Jansenists attributing them to God, the Jesuits to\nSatan.\n\nOf late years such cases have been treated in France with much\nshrewdness. When, about the middle of the present century, the Arab\npriests in Algiers tried to arouse fanaticism against the French\nChristians by performing miracles, the French Government, instead of\npersecuting the priests, sent Robert-Houdin, the most renowned juggler\nof his time, to the scene of action, and for every Arab miracle Houdin\nperformed two: did an Arab marabout turn a rod into a serpent, Houdin\nturned his rod into two serpents; and afterward showed the people how he\ndid it.\n\nSo, too, at the last International Exposition, the French Government,\nobserving the evil effects produced by the mania for table turning and\ntipping, took occasion, when a great number of French schoolmasters and\nteachers were visiting the exposition, to have public lectures given in\nwhich all the business of dark closets, hand-tying, materialization of\nspirits, presenting the faces of the departed, and ghostly portraiture\nwas fully performed by professional mountebanks, and afterward as fully\nexplained.\n\nSo in this case. The Government simply ordered the gate of the cemetery\nto be locked, and when the crowd could no longer approach the tomb the\nmiracles ceased. A little Parisian ridicule helped to end the matter. A\nwag wrote up over the gate of the cemetery.\n\n\n\"De par le Roi, defense a Dieu  De faire des miracles dans ce lieu\"--\n\n\nwhich, being translated from doggerel French into doggerel English, is--\n\n\"By order of the king, the Lord must forbear  To work any more of his miracles here.\"\n\n\nBut the theological spirit remained powerful. The French Revolution had\nnot then intervened to bring it under healthy limits. The agitation\nwas maintained, and, though the miracles and cases of possession were\nstopped in the cemetery, it spread. Again full course was given to\nmyth-making and the retailing of wonders. It was said that men had\nallowed themselves to be roasted before slow fires, and had been\nafterward found uninjured; that some had enormous weights piled upon\nthem, but had supernatural powers of resistance given them; and that, in\none case, a voluntary crucifixion had taken place.\n\nThis agitation was long, troublesome, and no doubt robbed many\ntemporarily or permanently of such little brains as they possessed.\nIt was only when the violence had become an old story and the charm of\nnovelty had entirely worn off, and the afflicted found themselves\nno longer regarded with especial interest, that the epidemic died\naway.(401)\n\n\n     (401) See Madden, Phantasmata, chap. xiv; also Sir James Stephen,\nHistory of France, lecture xxvi; also Henry Martin, Histoire de France,\nvol. xv, pp. 168 et seq.; also Calmeil, liv. v, chap. xxiv; also\nHecker's essay; and, for samples of myth-making, see the apocryphal\nSouvenirs de Crequy.\n\n\nBut in Germany at that time the outcome of this belief was far more\ncruel. In 1749 Maria Renata Singer, sub-prioress of a convent at\nWurzburg, was charged with bewitching her fellow-nuns. There was the\nusual story--the same essential facts as at Loudun--women shut up\nagainst their will, dreams of Satan disguised as a young man, petty\njealousies, spites, quarrels, mysterious uproar, trickery, utensils\nthrown about in a way not to be accounted for, hysterical shrieking and\nconvulsions, and, finally, the torture, confession, and execution of the\nsupposed culprit.(402)\n\n\n     (402) See Soldan, Scherr, Diefenbach, and others.\n\n\nVarious epidemics of this sort broke out from time to time in other\nparts of the world, though happily, as modern scepticism prevailed, with\nless cruel results.\n\nIn 1760 some congregations of Calvinistic Methodists in Wales became so\nfervent that they began leaping for joy. The mania spread, and gave rise\nto a sect called the \"Jumpers.\" A similar outbreak took place afterward\nin England, and has been repeated at various times and places since in\nour own country.(403)\n\n\n     (403) See Adam's Dictionary of All Religions, article on Jumpers; also\nHecker.\n\n\nIn 1780 came another outbreak in France; but this time it was not the\nJansenists who were affected, but the strictly orthodox. A large number\nof young girls between twelve and nineteen years of age, having been\nbrought together at the church of St. Roch, in Paris, with preaching\nand ceremonies calculated to arouse hysterics, one of them fell into\nconvulsions. Immediately other children were similarly taken, until some\nfifty or sixty were engaged in the same antics. This mania spread to\nother churches and gatherings, proved very troublesome, and in some\ncases led to results especially painful.\n\nAbout the same period came a similar outbreak among the Protestants\nof the Shetland Isles. A woman having been seized with convulsions at\nchurch, the disease spread to others, mainly women, who fell into the\nusual contortions and wild shriekings. A very effective cure proved to\nbe a threat to plunge the diseased into a neighbouring pond.\n\n\n\n\nII. BEGINNINGS OF HELPFUL SCEPTICISM.\n\n\nBut near the end of the eighteenth century a fact very important for\nscience was established. It was found that these manifestations do not\narise in all cases from supernatural sources. In 1787 came the noted\ncase at Hodden Bridge, in Lancashire. A girl working in a cotton\nmanufactory there put a mouse into the bosom of another girl who had\na great dread of mice. The girl thus treated immediately went into\nconvulsions, which lasted twenty-four hours. Shortly afterward three\nother girls were seized with like convulsions, a little later six more,\nand then others, until, in all, twenty-four were attacked. Then came a\nfact throwing a flood of light upon earlier occurrences. This epidemic,\nbeing noised abroad, soon spread to another factory five miles distant.\nThe patients there suffered from strangulation, danced, tore their hair,\nand dashed their heads against the walls. There was a strong belief that\nit was a disease introduced in cotton, but a resident physician amused\nthe patients with electric shocks, and the disease died out.\n\nIn 1801 came a case of like import in the Charite Hospital in Berlin.\nA girl fell into strong convulsions. The disease proved contagious,\nseveral others becoming afflicted in a similar way; but nearly all were\nfinally cured, principally by the administration of opium, which appears\nat that time to have been a fashionable remedy.\n\nOf the same sort was a case at Lyons in 1851. Sixty women were working\ntogether in a shop, when one of them, after a bitter quarrel with\nher husband, fell into a violent nervous paroxysm. The other women,\nsympathizing with her, gathered about to assist her, but one after\nanother fell into a similar condition, until twenty were thus\nprostrated, and a more general spread of the epidemic was only prevented\nby clearing the premises.(404)\n\n\n     (404) For these examples and others, see Tuke, Influence of the Mind\nupon the Body, vol. i, pp. 100, 277; also Hecker's essay.\n\n\nBut while these cases seemed, in the eye of Science, fatal to the old\nconception of diabolic influence, the great majority of such epidemics,\nwhen unexplained, continued to give strength to the older view.\n\nIn Roman Catholic countries these manifestations, as we have seen, have\ngenerally appeared in convents, or in churches where young girls are\nbrought together for their first communion, or at shrines where miracles\nare supposed to be wrought.\n\nIn Protestant countries they appear in times of great religious\nexcitement, and especially when large bodies of young women are\nsubmitted to the influence of noisy and frothy preachers. Well-known\nexamples of this in America are seen in the \"Jumpers,\" \"Jerkers,\" and\nvarious revival extravagances, especially among the negroes and \"poor\nwhites\" of the Southern States.\n\nThe proper conditions being given for the development of the\ndisease--generally a congregation composed mainly of young women--any\nfanatic or overzealous priest or preacher may stimulate hysterical\nseizures, which are very likely to become epidemic.\n\nAs a recent typical example on a large scale, I take the case of\ndiabolic possession at Morzine, a French village on the borders of\nSwitzerland; and it is especially instructive, because it was thoroughly\ninvestigated by a competent man of science.\n\nAbout the year 1853 a sick girl at Morzine, acting strangely, was\nthought to be possessed of the devil, and was taken to Besancon,\nwhere she seems to have fallen into the hands of kindly and sensible\necclesiastics, and, under the operation of the relics preserved in the\ncathedral there--especially the handkerchief of Christ--the devil was\ncast out and she was cured. Naturally, much was said of the affair among\nthe peasantry, and soon other cases began to show themselves. The priest\nat Morzine attempted to quiet the matter by avowing his disbelief in\nsuch cases of possession; but immediately a great outcry was raised\nagainst him, especially by the possessed themselves. The matter was\nnow widely discussed, and the malady spread rapidly; myth-making and\nwonder-mongering began; amazing accounts were thus developed and sent\nout to the world. The afflicted were said to have climbed trees like\nsquirrels; to have shown superhuman strength; to have exercised the gift\nof tongues, speaking in German, Latin, and even in Arabic; to have\ngiven accounts of historical events they had never heard of; and to have\nrevealed the secret thoughts of persons about them. Mingled with such\nexhibitions of power were outbursts of blasphemy and obscenity.\n\nBut suddenly came something more miraculous, apparently, than all\nthese wonders. Without any assigned cause, this epidemic of possession\ndiminished and the devil disappeared.\n\nNot long after this, Prof. Tissot, an eminent member of the medical\nfaculty at Dijon, visited the spot and began a series of researches, of\nwhich he afterward published a full account. He tells us that he found\nsome reasons for the sudden departure of Satan which had never been\npublished. He discovered that the Government had quietly removed one or\ntwo very zealous ecclesiastics to another parish, had sent the police\nto Morzine to maintain order, and had given instructions that those\nwho acted outrageously should be simply treated as lunatics and sent\nto asylums. This policy, so accordant with French methods of\nadministration, cast out the devil: the possessed were mainly cured, and\nthe matter appeared ended.\n\nBut Dr. Tissot found a few of the diseased still remaining, and he soon\nsatisfied himself by various investigations and experiments that they\nwere simply suffering from hysteria. One of his investigations is\nespecially curious. In order to observe the patients more carefully, he\ninvited some of them to dine with him, gave them without their knowledge\nholy water in their wine or their food, and found that it produced no\neffect whatever, though its results upon the demons when the possessed\nknew of its presence had been very marked. Even after large draughts of\nholy water had been thus given, the possessed remained afflicted, urged\nthat the devil should be cast out, and some of them even went into\nconvulsions; the devil apparently speaking from their mouths. It was\nevident that Satan had not the remotest idea that he had been thoroughly\ndosed with the most effective medicine known to the older theology.(405)\n\n\n     (405) For an amazing delineation of the curative and other virtues of\nholy water, see the Abbe Gaume, L'Eau benite au XIXme Siecle, Paris,\n1866.\n\n\nAt last Tissot published the results of his experiments, and the\nstereotyped answer was soon made. It resembled the answer made by the\nclerical opponents of Galileo when he showed them the moons of Jupiter\nthrough his telescope, and they declared that the moons were created\nby the telescope. The clerical opponents of Tissot insisted that the\nnon-effect of the holy water upon the demons proved nothing save the\nextraordinary cunning of Satan; that the archfiend wished it to be\nthought that he does not exist, and so overcame his repugnance to holy\nwater, gulping it down in order to conceal his presence.\n\nDr. Tissot also examined into the gift of tongues exercised by the\npossessed. As to German and Latin, no great difficulty was presented:\nit was by no means hard to suppose that some of the girls might have\nlearned some words of the former language in the neighbouring Swiss\ncantons where German was spoken, or even in Germany itself; and as to\nLatin, considering that they had heard it from their childhood in the\nchurch, there seemed nothing very wonderful in their uttering some words\nin that language also. As to Arabic, had they really spoken it, that\nmight have been accounted for by the relations of the possessed with\nZouaves or Spahis from the French army; but, as Tissot could discover no\nsuch relations, he investigated this point as the most puzzling of all.\n\nOn a close inquiry, he found that all the wonderful examples of speaking\nArabic were reduced to one. He then asked whether there was any other\nperson speaking or knowing Arabic in the town. He was answered that\nthere was not. He asked whether any person had lived there, so far as\nany one could remember, who had spoken or understood Arabic, and he was\nanswered in the negative.\n\nHe then asked the witnesses how they knew that the language spoken\nby the girl was Arabic: no answer was vouchsafed him; but he was\noverwhelmed with such stories as that of a pig which, at sight of the\ncross on the village church, suddenly refused to go farther; and he was\ndenounced thoroughly in the clerical newspapers for declining to accept\nsuch evidence.\n\nAt Tissot's visit in 1863 the possession had generally ceased, and the\ncases left were few and quiet. But his visits stirred a new controversy,\nand its echoes were long and loud in the pulpits and clerical journals.\nBelievers insisted that Satan had been removed by the intercession\nof the Blessed Virgin; unbelievers hinted that the main cause of\nthe deliverance was the reluctance of the possessed to be shut up in\nasylums.\n\nUnder these circumstances the Bishop of Annecy announced that he would\nvisit Morzine to administer Confirmation, and word appears to have\nspread that he would give a more orthodox completion to the work already\ndone, by exorcising the devils who remained. Immediately several new\ncases of possession appeared; young girls who had been cured were\nagain affected; the embers thus kindled were fanned into a flame by a\n\"mission\" which sundry priests held in the parish to arouse the people\nto their religious duties--a mission in Roman Catholic countries being\nakin to a \"revival\" among some Protestant sects. Multitudes of young\nwomen, excited by the preaching and appeals of the clergy, were again\nthrown into the old disease, and at the coming of the good bishop it\nculminated.\n\nThe account is given in the words of an eye-witness:\n\n\"At the solemn entrance of the bishop into the church, the possessed\npersons threw themselves on the ground before him, or endeavoured to\nthrow themselves upon him, screaming frightfully, cursing, blaspheming,\nso that the people at large were struck with horror. The possessed\nfollowed the bishop, hooted him, and threatened him, up to the middle\nof the church. Order was only established by the intervention of the\nsoldiers. During the confirmation the diseased redoubled their howls and\ninfernal vociferations, and tried to spit in the face of the bishop and\nto tear off his pastoral raiment. At the moment when the prelate gave\nhis benediction a still more outrageous scene took place. The violence\nof the diseased was carried to fury, and from all parts of the church\narose yells and fearful howling; so frightful was the din that tears\nfell from the eyes of many of the spectators, and many strangers were\nthrown into consternation.\"\n\nAmong the very large number of these diseased persons there were only\ntwo men; of the remainder only two were of advanced age; the great\nmajority were young women between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five\nyears.\n\nThe public authorities shortly afterward intervened, and sought to\ncure the disease and to draw the people out of their mania by singing,\ndancing, and sports of various sorts, until at last it was brought under\ncontrol.(406)\n\n\n     (406) See Tissot, L'Imagination: ses Bienfaits et ses Egarements sutout\ndans le Domaine du Merveilleux, Paris, 1868, liv. iv, ch. vii, S 7:\nLes Possedees de Morzine; also Constans, Relation sur une Epidemie de\nHystero-Demonopathies, Paris, 1863.\n\n\nScenes similar to these, in their essential character, have arisen more\nrecently in Protestant countries, but with the difference that what has\nbeen generally attributed by Roman Catholic ecclesiastics to Satan is\nattributed by Protestant ecclesiastics to the Almighty. Typical among\nthe greater exhibitions of this were those which began in the Methodist\nchapel at Redruth in Cornwall--convulsions, leaping, jumping, until some\nfour thousand persons were seized by it. The same thing is seen in the\nruder parts of America at \"revivals\" and camp meetings. Nor in the\nruder parts of America alone. In June, 1893, at a funeral in the city\nof Brooklyn, one of the mourners having fallen into hysterical fits,\nseveral other cases at once appeared in various parts of the church\nedifice, and some of the patients were so seriously affected that they\nwere taken to a hospital.\n\nIn still another field these exhibitions are seen, but more after a\nmedieval pattern: in the Tigretier of Abyssinia we have epidemics of\ndancing which seek and obtain miraculous cures.\n\nReports of similar manifestations are also sent from missionaries\nfrom the west coast of Africa, one of whom sees in some of them the\ncharacteristics of cases of possession mentioned in our Gospels, and is\ntherefore inclined to attribute them to Satan.(407)\n\n\n     (407) For the cases in Brooklyn, see the New York Tribune of about June\n10, 1893. For the Tigretier, with especially interesting citations, see\nHecker, chap. iii, sec. 1. For the cases in western Africa, see the Rev.\nJ. L. Wilson, Western Africa, p. 217.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. THEOLOGICAL \"RESTATEMENTS.\"--FINAL TRIUMPH OF THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW\nAND METHODS.\n\n\nBut, happily, long before these latter occurrences, science had come\ninto the field and was gradually diminishing this class of diseases.\nAmong the earlier workers to this better purpose was the great Dutch\nphysician Boerhaave. Finding in one of the wards in the hospital at\nHaarlem a number of women going into convulsions and imitating each\nother in various acts of frenzy, he immediately ordered a furnace of\nblazing coals into the midst of the ward, heated cauterizing irons, and\ndeclared that he would burn the arms of the first woman who fell into\nconvulsions. No more cases occurred.(408)\n\n\n     (408) See Figuier, Histoire de Merveilleux, vol. i, p. 403.\n\n\nThese and similar successful dealings of medical science with mental\ndisease brought about the next stage in the theological development. The\nChurch sought to retreat, after the usual manner, behind a compromise.\nEarly in the eighteenth century appeared a new edition of the great work\nby the Jesuit Delrio which for a hundred years had been a text-book for\nthe use of ecclesiastics in fighting witchcraft; but in this edition\nthe part played by Satan in diseases was changed: it was suggested that,\nwhile diseases have natural causes, it is necessary that Satan enter\nthe human body in order to make these causes effective. This work claims\nthat Satan \"attacks lunatics at the full moon, when their brains are\nfull of humours\"; that in other cases of illness he \"stirs the black\nbile\"; and that in cases of blindness and deafness he \"clogs the eyes\nand ears.\" By the close of the century this \"restatement\" was evidently\nfound untenable, and one of a very different sort was attempted in\nEngland.\n\nIn the third edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, published in 1797,\nunder the article Daemoniacs, the orthodox view was presented in the\nfollowing words: \"The reality of demoniacal possession stands upon the\nsame evidence with the gospel system in general.\"\n\nThis statement, though necessary to satisfy the older theological\nsentiment, was clearly found too dangerous to be sent out into the\nmodern sceptical world without some qualification. Another view was\ntherefore suggested, namely, that the personages of the New Testament\n\"adopted the vulgar language in speaking of those unfortunate persons\nwho were generally imagined to be possessed with demons.\" Two or three\neditions contained this curious compromise; but near the middle of the\npresent century the whole discussion was quietly dropped.\n\nScience, declining to trouble itself with any of these views, pressed\non, and toward the end of the century we see Dr. Rhodes at Lyons curing\na very serious case of possession by the use of a powerful emetic; yet\nmyth-making came in here also, and it was stated that when the emetic\nproduced its effect people had seen multitudes of green and yellow\ndevils cast forth from the mouth of the possessed.\n\nThe last great demonstration of the old belief in England was made in\n1788. Near the city of Bristol at that time lived a drunken epileptic,\nGeorge Lukins. In asking alms, he insisted that he was \"possessed,\" and\nproved it by jumping, screaming, barking, and treating the company to a\nparody of the Te Deum.\n\nHe was solemnly brought into the Temple Church, and seven clergymen\nunited in the effort to exorcise the evil spirit. Upon their adjuring\nSatan, he swore \"by his infernal den\" that he would not come out of\nthe man--\"an oath,\" says the chronicler, \"nowhere to be found but in\nBunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, from which Lukins probably got it.\"\n\nBut the seven clergymen were at last successful, and seven devils were\ncast out, after which Lukins retired, and appears to have been supported\nduring the remainder of his life as a monument of mercy.\n\nWith this great effort the old theory in England seemed practically\nexhausted.\n\nScience had evidently carried the stronghold. In 1876, at a little\ntown near Amiens, in France, a young woman suffering with all the usual\nevidences of diabolic possession was brought to the priest. The priest\nwas besought to cast out the devil, but he simply took her to the\nhospital, where, under scientific treatment, she rapidly became\nbetter.(409)\n\n\n     (409) See Figuier; also Collin de Plancy, Dictionnaire Infernale,\narticle Posseses.\n\n\nThe final triumph of science in this part of the great field has been\nmainly achieved during the latter half of the present century.\n\nFollowing in the noble succession of Paracelsus and John Hunter and\nPinel and Tuke and Esquirol, have come a band of thinkers and workers\nwho by scientific observation and research have developed new growths of\ntruth, ever more and more precious.\n\nAmong the many facts thus brought to bear upon this last stronghold\nof the Prince of Darkness, may be named especially those indicating\n\"expectant attention\"--an expectation of phenomena dwelt upon until the\nlonging for them becomes morbid and invincible, and the creation of\nthem perhaps unconscious. Still other classes of phenomena leading to\nepidemics are found to arise from a morbid tendency to imitation. Still\nother groups have been brought under hypnotism. Multitudes more have\nbeen found under the innumerable forms and results of hysteria. A study\nof the effects of the imagination upon bodily functions has also yielded\nremarkable results.\n\nAnd, finally, to supplement this work, have come in an array of\nscholars in history and literature who have investigated myth-making and\nwonder-mongering.\n\nThus has been cleared away that cloud of supernaturalism which so long\nhung over mental diseases, and thus have they been brought within the\nfirm grasp of science.(410)\n\n\n     (410) To go into even leading citations in this vast and beneficent\nliterature would take me far beyond my plan and space, but I may\nname, among easily accessible authorities, Brierre de Boismont on\nHallucinations, Hulme's translation, 1860; also James Braid, The Power\nof the Mind over the Body, London, 1846; Krafft-Ebing, Lehrbuch der\nPsychiatrie, Stuttgart, 1888; Tuke, Influence of the Mind on the Body,\nLondon, 1884; Maudsley, Pathology of the Mind, London, 1879; Carpenter,\nMental Physiology, sixth edition, London, 1888; Lloyd Tuckey, Faith\nCure, in The Nineteenth Century for December, 1888; Pettigrew,\nSuperstitions connected with the Practice of Medicine and Surgery,\nLondon, 1844; Snell, Hexenprocesse und Geistesstorung, Munchen,\n1891. For a very valuable study of interesting cases, see The Law\nof Hypnotism, by Prof. R. S. Hyer, of the Southwestern University,\nGeorgetown, Texas, 1895.\n\nAs to myth-making and wonder-mongering, the general reader will find\ninteresting supplementary accounts in the recent works of Andrew Lang\nand Baring-Gould.\n\nA very curious evidence of the effects of the myth-making tendency\nhas recently come to the attention of the writer of this article.\nPeriodically, for many years past, we have seen, in books of travel\nand in the newspapers, accounts of the wonderful performances of the\njugglers in India; of the stabbing of a child in a small basket in the\nmidst of an arena, and the child appearing alive in the surrounding\ncrowd; of seeds planted, sprouted, and becoming well-grown trees under\nthe hand of the juggler; of ropes thrown into the air and sustained by\ninvisible force. Count de Gubernatis, the eminent professor and Oriental\nscholar at Florence, informed the present writer that he had recently\nseen and studied these exhibitions, and that, so far from being\nwonderful, they were much inferior to the jugglery so well known in all\nour Western capitals.\n\n\nConscientious men still linger on who find comfort in holding fast\nto some shred of the old belief in diabolic possession. The sturdy\ndeclaration in the last century by John Wesley, that \"giving up\nwitchcraft is giving up the Bible,\" is echoed feebly in the latter\nhalf of this century by the eminent Catholic ecclesiastic in France who\ndeclares that \"to deny possession by devils is to charge Jesus and his\napostles with imposture,\" and asks, \"How can the testimony of apostles,\nfathers of the Church, and saints who saw the possessed and so declared,\nbe denied?\" And a still fainter echo lingers in Protestant England.(411)\n\n\n     (411) See the Abbe Barthelemi, in the Dictionnaire de la Conversation;\nalso the Rev. W. Scott's Doctrine of Evil Spirits proved, London, 1853;\nalso the vigorous protest of Dean Burgon against the action of the New\nTestament revisers, in substituting the word \"epileptic\" for \"lunatic\"\nin Matthew xvii, 15, published in the Quarterly Review for January,\n1882.\n\n\nBut, despite this conscientious opposition, science has in these latter\ndays steadily wrought hand in hand with Christian charity in this field,\nto evolve a better future for humanity. The thoughtful physician and the\ndevoted clergyman are now constantly seen working together; and it is\nnot too much to expect that Satan, having been cast out of the insane\nasylums, will ere long disappear from monasteries and camp meetings,\neven in the most unenlightened regions of Christendom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII. FROM BABEL TO COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE SACRED THEORY IN ITS FIRST FORM.\n\n\nAmong the sciences which have served as entering wedges into the heavy\nmass of ecclesiastical orthodoxy--to cleave it, disintegrate it, and let\nthe light of Christianity into it--none perhaps has done a more striking\nwork than Comparative Philology. In one very important respect the\nhistory of this science differs from that of any other; for it is the\nonly one whose conclusions theologians have at last fully adopted as\nthe result of their own studies. This adoption teaches a great lesson,\nsince, while it has destroyed theological views cherished during many\ncenturies, and obliged the Church to accept theories directly contrary\nto the plain letter of our sacred books, the result is clearly seen to\nhave helped Christianity rather than to have hurt it. It has certainly\ndone much to clear our religious foundations of the dogmatic rust which\nwas eating into their structure.\n\nHow this result was reached, and why the Church has so fully accepted\nit, I shall endeavour to show in the present chapter. At a very early\nperiod in the evolution of civilization men began to ask questions\nregarding language; and the answers to these questions were naturally\nembodied in the myths, legends, and chronicles of their sacred books.\n\nAmong the foremost of these questions were three: \"Whence came\nlanguage?\" \"Which was the first language?\" \"How came the diversity of\nlanguage?\"\n\nThe answer to the first of these was very simple: each people naturally\nheld that language was given it directly or indirectly by some special\nor national deity of its own; thus, to the Chaldeans by Oannes, to the\nEgyptians by Thoth, to the Hebrews by Jahveh.\n\nThe Hebrew answer is embodied in the great poem which opens our sacred\nbooks. Jahveh talks with Adam and is perfectly understood; the serpent\ntalks with Eve and is perfectly understood; Jahveh brings the animals\nbefore Adam, who bestows on each its name. Language, then, was God-given\nand complete. Of the fact that every language is the result of a growth\nprocess there was evidently, among the compilers of our sacred books, no\nsuspicion.\n\nThe answer to the second of these questions was no less simple. As,\nvery generally, each nation believed its own chief divinity to be \"a god\nabove all gods,\"--as each believed itself \"a chosen people,\"--as each\nbelieved its own sacred city the actual centre of the earth, so each\nbelieved its own language to be the first--the original of all. This\nanswer was from the first taken for granted by each \"chosen people,\" and\nespecially by the Hebrews: throughout their whole history, whether the\nAlmighty talks with Adam in the Garden or writes the commandments on\nMount Sinai, he uses the same language--the Hebrew.\n\nThe answer to the third of these questions, that regarding the diversity\nof languages, was much more difficult. Naturally, explanations of this\ndiversity frequently gave rise to legends somewhat complicated.\n\nThe \"law of wills and causes,\" formulated by Comte, was exemplified here\nas in so many other cases. That law is, that, when men do not know the\nnatural causes of things, they simply attribute them to wills like their\nown; thus they obtain a theory which provisionally takes the place of\nscience, and this theory forms a basis for theology.\n\nExamples of this recur to any thinking reader of history. Before\nthe simpler laws of astronomy were known, the sun was supposed to be\ntrundled out into the heavens every day and the stars hung up in the\nfirmament every night by the right hand of the Almighty. Before the\nlaws of comets were known, they were thought to be missiles hurled by\nan angry God at a wicked world. Before the real cause of lightning was\nknown, it was supposed to be the work of a good God in his wrath, or of\nevil spirits in their malice. Before the laws of meteorology were known,\nit was thought that rains were caused by the Almighty or his angels\nopening \"the windows of heaven\" to let down upon the earth \"the waters\nthat be above the firmament.\" Before the laws governing physical\nhealth were known, diseases were supposed to result from the direct\ninterposition of the Almighty or of Satan. Before the laws governing\nmental health were known, insanity was generally thought to be diabolic\npossession. All these early conceptions were naturally embodied in the\nsacred books of the world, and especially in our own.(412)\n\n\n     (412) Any one who wishes to realize the mediaeval view of the direct\npersonal attention of the Almighty to the universe, can perhaps do so\nmost easily by looking over the engravings in the well-known Nuremberg\nChronicle, representing him in the work of each of the six days, and\nresting afterward.\n\n\nSo, in this case, to account for the diversity of tongues, the direct\nintervention of the Divine Will was brought in. As this diversity was\nfelt to be an inconvenience, it was attributed to the will of a Divine\nBeing in anger. To explain this anger, it was held that it must have\nbeen provoked by human sin.\n\nOut of this conception explanatory myths and legends grew as thickly and\nnaturally as elms along water-courses; of these the earliest form known\nto us is found in the Chaldean accounts, and nowhere more clearly than\nin the legend of the Tower of Babel.\n\nThe inscriptions recently found among the ruins of Assyria have thrown\na bright light into this and other scriptural myths and legends: the\ndeciphering of the characters in these inscriptions by Grotefend, and\nthe reading of the texts by George Smith, Oppert, Sayce, and others,\nhave given us these traditions more nearly in their original form than\nthey appear in our own Scriptures.\n\nThe Hebrew story of Babel, like so many other legends in the sacred\nbooks of the world, combined various elements. By a play upon words,\nsuch as the history of myths and legends frequently shows, it wrought\ninto one fabric the earlier explanations of the diversities of human\nspeech and of the great ruined tower at Babylon. The name Babel (bab-el)\nmeans \"Gate of God\" or \"Gate of the Gods.\" All modern scholars of note\nagree that this was the real significance of the name; but the Hebrew\nverb which signifies TO CONFOUND resembles somewhat the word Babel, so\nthat out of this resemblance, by one of the most common processes in\nmyth formation, came to the Hebrew mind an indisputable proof that the\ntower was connected with the confusion of tongues, and this became part\nof our theological heritage.\n\nIn our sacred books the account runs as follows:\n\n\"And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.\n\n\"And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a\nplain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.\n\n\"And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them\nthoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar.\n\n\"And they said, Go to, let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top\nmay reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered\nabroad upon the face of the whole earth.\n\n\"And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the\nchildren of men builded.\n\n\"And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one\nlanguage; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained\nfrom them, which they have imagined to do.\n\n\"Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may\nnot understand one another's speech.\n\n\"So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the\nearth: and they left off to build the city.\n\n\"Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there\nconfound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord\nscatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.\" (Genesis xi, 1-9.)\n\nThus far the legend had been but slightly changed from the earlier\nChaldean form in which it has been found in the Assyrian inscriptions.\nIts character is very simple: to use the words of Prof. Sayce, \"It takes\nus back to the age when the gods were believed to dwell in the visible\nsky, and when man, therefore, did his best to rear his altars as near\nthem as possible.\" And this eminent divine might have added that it\ntakes us back also to a time when it was thought that Jehovah, in order\nto see the tower fully, was obliged to come down from his seat above the\nfirmament.\n\nAs to the real reasons for the building of the towers which formed so\nstriking a feature in Chaldean architecture--any one of which may easily\nhave given rise to the explanatory myth which found its way into our\nsacred books--there seems a substantial agreement among leading scholars\nthat they were erected primarily as parts of temples, but largely for\nthe purpose of astronomical observations, to which the Chaldeans were\nso devoted, and to which their country, with its level surface and clear\natmosphere, was so well adapted. As to the real cause of the ruin of\nsuch structures, one of the inscribed cylinders discovered in recent\ntimes, speaking of a tower which most of the archaeologists identify\nwith the Tower of Babel, reads as follows:\n\n\"The building named the Stages of the Seven Spheres, which was the Tower\nof Borsippa, had been built by a former king. He had completed forty-two\ncubits, but he did not finish its head. During the lapse of time, it\nhad become ruined; they had not taken care of the exit of the waters,\nso that rain and wet had penetrated into the brickwork; the casing\nof burned brick had swollen out, and the terraces of crude brick are\nscattered in heaps.\"\n\nWe can well understand how easily \"the gods, assisted by the winds,\" as\nstated in the Chaldean legend, could overthrow a tower thus built.\n\nIt may be instructive to compare with the explanatory myth developed\nfirst by the Chaldeans, and in a slightly different form by the Hebrews,\nvarious other legends to explain the same diversity of tongues. The\nHindu legend of the confusion of tongues is as follows:\n\n\"There grew in the centre of the earth the wonderful 'world tree,' or\n'knowledge tree.' It was so tall that it reached almost to heaven.\nIt said in its heart, 'I shall hold my head in heaven and spread my\nbranches over all the earth, and gather all men together under my\nshadow, and protect them, and prevent them from separating.' But Brahma,\nto punish the pride of the tree, cut off its branches and cast them down\non the earth, when they sprang up as wata trees, and made differences of\nbelief and speech and customs to prevail on the earth, to disperse men\nupon its surface.\"\n\nStill more striking is a Mexican legend: according to this, the giant\nXelhua built the great Pyramid of Cholula, in order to reach heaven,\nuntil the gods, angry at his audacity, threw fire upon the building and\nbroke it down, whereupon every separate family received a language of\nits own.\n\nSuch explanatory myths grew or spread widely over the earth. A\nwell-known form of the legend, more like the Chaldean than the Hebrew\nlater form, appeared among the Greeks. According to this, the Aloidae\npiled Mount Ossa upon Olympus and Pelion upon Ossa, in their efforts to\nreach heaven and dethrone Jupiter.\n\nStill another form of it entered the thoughts of Plato. He held that in\nthe golden age men and beasts all spoke the same language, but that\nZeus confounded their speech because men were proud and demanded eternal\nyouth and immortality.(413)\n\n\n     (413) For the identification of the Tower of Babel with the \"Birs\nNimrad\" amid the ruins of the city of Borsippa, see Rawlinson; also\nSchrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London,\n1885, pp. 106-112 and following; and especially George Smith, Assyrian\nDiscoveries, p. 59. For some of these inscriptions discovered and read\nby George Smith, see his Chaldean Account of Genesis, new York, 1876,\npp. 160-162. For the statement regarding the origin of the word Babel,\nsee Ersch and Gruber, article Babylon; also the Rev. Prof. A. H. Sayce\nin the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica; also Colenso,\nPentateuch Examined, part iv, p. 302; also John Fiske, Myths and\nMyth-makers, p. 72; also Lenormont, Histoire Ancienne de l'Orient,\nParis, 1881, vol. i, pp. 115 et seq. As to the character and purpose of\nthe great tower of the temple of Belus, see Smith's Bible Dictionary,\narticle Babel, quoting Diodorus; also Rawlinson, especially in Journal\nof the Asiatic Society for 1861; also Sayce, Religion of the Ancient\nBabylonians (Hibbert Lectures for 1887), London, 1887, chap. ii and\nelsewhere, especially pages 96, 397, 407; also Max Duncker, History\nof Antiquity, Abbott's translation, vol. ii, chaps. ii, and iii.\nFor similar legends in other parts of the world, see Delitzsch; also\nHumboldt, American Researches; also Brinton, Myths of the New World;\nalso Colenso, as above. The Tower of Cholula is well known, having\nbeen described by Humboldt and Lord Kingsborough. For superb engravings\nshowing the view of Babel as developed by the theological imagination,\nsee Kircher, Turris Babel, Amsterdam, 1679. For the Law of Wills and\nCauses, with deductions from it well stated, see Beattie Crozier,\nCivilization and Progress, London, 1888, pp. 112, 178, 179, 273. For\nPlato, see the Politicus, p. 272, ed. Stephani, cited in Ersch and\nGruber, article Babylon. For a good general statement, see Bible Myths,\nNew York, 1883, chap. iii. For Aristotle's strange want of interest in\nany classification of the varieties of human speech, see Max Muller,\nLectures on the Science of Language, London, 1864, series i, chap. iv,\npp. 123-125.\n\n\nBut naturally the version of the legend which most affected Christendom\nwas that modification of the Chaldean form developed among the Jews and\nembodied in their sacred books. To a thinking man in these days it is\nvery instructive. The coming down of the Almighty from heaven to see\nthe tower and put an end to it by dispersing its builders, points to the\ntime when his dwelling was supposed to be just above the firmament or\nsolid vault above the earth: the time when he exercised his beneficent\nactivity in such acts as opening \"the windows of heaven\" to give down\nrain upon the earth; in bringing out the sun every day and hanging up\nthe stars every night to give light to the earth; in hurling comets, to\ngive warning; in placing his bow in the cloud, to give hope; in, coming\ndown in the cool of the evening to walk and talk with the man he had\nmade; in making coats of skins for Adam and Eve; in enjoying the odour\nof flesh which Noah burned for him; in eating with Abraham under the\noaks of Mamre; in wrestling with Jacob; and in writing with his own\nfinger on the stone tables for Moses.\n\nSo came the answer to the third question regarding language; and all\nthree answers, embodied in our sacred books and implanted in the Jewish\nmind, supplied to the Christian Church the germs of a theological\ndevelopment of philology. These germs developed rapidly in the warm\natmosphere of devotion and ignorance of natural law which pervaded the\nearly Church, and there grew a great orthodox theory of language, which\nwas held throughout Christendom, \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" for\nnearly two thousand years, and to which, until the present century, all\nscience has been obliged, under pains and penalties, to conform.\n\nThere did, indeed, come into human thought at an early period some\nsuggestions of the modern scientific view of philology. Lucretius had\nproposed a theory, inadequate indeed, but still pointing toward the\ntruth, as follows: \"Nature impelled man to try the various sounds of the\ntongue, and so struck out the names of things, much in the same way as\nthe inability to speak is seen in its turn to drive children to the use\nof gestures.\" But, among the early fathers of the Church, the only one\nwho seems to have caught an echo of this utterance was St. Gregory of\nNyssa: as a rule, all the other great founders of Christian theology, as\nfar as they expressed themselves on the subject, took the view that the\noriginal language spoken by the Almighty and given by him to men was\nHebrew, and that from this all other languages were derived at the\ndestruction of the Tower of Babel. This doctrine was especially upheld\nby Origen, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. Origen taught that \"the\nlanguage given at the first through Adam, the Hebrew, remained among\nthat portion of mankind which was assigned not to any angel, but\ncontinued the portion of God himself.\" St. Augustine declared that, when\nthe other races were divided by their own peculiar languages, Heber's\nfamily preserved that language which is not unreasonably believed to\nhave been the common language of the race, and that on this account it\nwas henceforth called Hebrew. St. Jerome wrote, \"The whole of antiquity\naffirms that Hebrew, in which the Old Testament is written, was the\nbeginning of all human speech.\"\n\nAmid such great authorities as these even Gregory of Nyssa struggled in\nvain. He seems to have taken the matter very earnestly, and to have\nused not only argument but ridicule. He insists that God does not speak\nHebrew, and that the tongue used by Moses was not even a pure dialect\nof one of the languages resulting from \"the confusion.\" He makes man\nthe inventor of speech, and resorts to raillery: speaking against his\nopponent Eunomius, he says that, \"passing in silence his base and abject\ngarrulity,\" he will \"note a few things which are thrown into the midst\nof his useless or wordy discourse, where he represents God teaching\nwords and names to our first parents, sitting before them like some\npedagogue or grammar master.\" But, naturally, the great authority\nof Origen, Jerome, and Augustine prevailed; the view suggested by\nLucretius, and again by St. Gregory of Nyssa, died, out; and \"always,\neverywhere, and by all,\" in the Church, the doctrine was received that\nthe language spoken by the Almighty was Hebrew,--that it was taught\nby him to Adam,--and that all other languages on the face of the earth\noriginated from it at the dispersion attending the destruction of the\nTower of Babel.(414)\n\n\n     (414) For Lucretius's statement, see the De Rerum Natura, lib. v,\nMunro's edition, with translation, Cambridge, 1886, vol. iii. p.\n141. For the opinion of Gregory of Nyssa, see Benfey, Geschichte der\nSprachwissenschaft in Deutschland, Munchen, 1869, p. 179; and for the\npassage cited, see Gregory of Nyssa in his Contra Eunomium, xii, in\nMigne's Patr. Graeca, vol. ii, p. 1043. For St. Jerome, see his Epistle\nXVIII, in Migne's Patr. Lat., vol. xxii, p. 365. For citation from St.\nAugustine, see the City of God, Dod's translation, Edinburgh, 1871,\nvol. ii, p. 122. For citation from Origen, see his Homily XI, cited by\nGuichard in preface to L'Harmonie Etymologique, Paris, 1631, lib. xvi,\nchap. xi. For absolutely convincing proofs that the Jews derived the\nBabel and other legends of their sacred books fro the Chaldeans, see\nGeorge Smith, Chaldean Account of Genesis, passim; but especially for a\nmost candid though somewhat reluctant summing up, see p. 291.\n\n\nThis idea threw out roots and branches in every direction, and so\ndeveloped ever into new and strong forms. As all scholars now know,\nthe vowel points in the Hebrew language were not adopted until at some\nperiod between the second and tenth centuries; but in the mediaeval\nChurch they soon came to be considered as part of the great miracle,--as\nthe work of the right hand of the Almighty; and never until the\neighteenth century was there any doubt allowed as to the divine origin\nof these rabbinical additions to the text. To hesitate in believing that\nthese points were dotted virtually by the very hand of God himself came\nto be considered a fearful heresy.\n\nThe series of battles between theology and science in the field\nof comparative philology opened just on this point, apparently\nso insignificant: the direct divine inspiration of the rabbinical\npunctuation. The first to impugn this divine origin of these vocal\npoints and accents appears to have been a Spanish monk, Raymundus\nMartinus, in his Pugio Fidei, or Poniard of the Faith, which he put\nforth in the thirteenth century. But he and his doctrine disappeared\nbeneath the waves of the orthodox ocean, and apparently left no trace.\nFor nearly three hundred years longer the full sacred theory held its\nground; but about the opening of the sixteenth century another glimpse\nof the truth was given by a Jew, Elias Levita, and this seems to have\nhad some little effect, at least in keeping the germ of scientific truth\nalive.\n\nThe Reformation, with its renewal of the literal study of the\nScriptures, and its transfer of all infallibility from the Church and\nthe papacy to the letter of the sacred books, intensified for a time the\ndevotion of Christendom to this sacred theory of language. The belief\nwas strongly held that the writers of the Bible were merely pens in\nthe hand of God (Dei calami.{;?} Hence the conclusion that not only the\nsense but the words, letters, and even the punctuation proceeded from\nthe Holy Spirit. Only on this one question of the origin of the Hebrew\npoints was there any controversy, and this waxed hot. It began to be\nespecially noted that these vowel points in the Hebrew Bible did not\nexist in the synagogue rolls, were not mentioned in the Talmud, and\nseemed unknown to St. Jerome; and on these grounds some earnest men\nventured to think them no part of the original revelation to Adam.\nZwingli, so much before most of the Reformers in other respects,\nwas equally so in this. While not doubting the divine origin and\npreservation of the Hebrew language as a whole, he denied the antiquity\nof the vocal points, demonstrated their unessential character, and\npointed out the fact that St. Jerome makes no mention of them. His\ndenial was long the refuge of those who shared this heresy.\n\nBut the full orthodox theory remained established among the vast\nmajority both of Catholics and Protestants. The attitude of the former\nis well illustrated in the imposing work of the canon Marini, which\nappeared at Venice in 1593, under the title of Noah's Ark: A New\nTreasury of the Sacred Tongue. The huge folios begin with the\ndeclaration that the Hebrew tongue was \"divinely inspired at the very\nbeginning of the world,\" and the doctrine is steadily maintained that\nthis divine inspiration extended not only to the letters but to the\npunctuation.\n\nNot before the seventeenth century was well under way do we find a\nthorough scholar bold enough to gainsay this preposterous doctrine. This\nnew assailant was Capellus, Professor of Hebrew at Saumur; but he dared\nnot put forth his argument in France: he was obliged to publish it in\nHolland, and even there such obstacles were thrown in his way that it\nwas ten years before he published another treatise of importance.\n\nThe work of Capellus was received as settling the question by very many\nopen-minded scholars, among whom was Hugo Grotius. But many theologians\nfelt this view to be a blow at the sanctity and integrity of the sacred\ntext; and in 1648 the great scholar, John Buxtorf the younger, rose\nto defend the orthodox citadel: in his Anticritica he brought all his\nstores of knowledge to uphold the doctrine that the rabbinical points\nand accents had been jotted down by the right hand of God.\n\nThe controversy waxed hot: scholars like Voss and Brian Walton supported\nCapellus; Wasmuth and many others of note were as fierce against him.\nThe Swiss Protestants were especially violent on the orthodox side;\ntheir formula consensus of 1675 declared the vowel points to be\ninspired, and three years later the Calvinists of Geneva, by a\nspecial canon, forbade that any minister should be received into their\njurisdiction until he publicly confessed that the Hebrew text, as it\nto-day exists in the Masoretic copies, is, both as to the consonants and\nvowel points, divine and authentic.\n\nWhile in Holland so great a man as Hugo Grotius supported the view\nof Capellus, and while in France the eminent Catholic scholar Richard\nSimon, and many others, Catholic and Protestant, took similar ground\nagainst this divine origin of the Hebrew punctuation, there was arrayed\nagainst them a body apparently overwhelming. In France, Bossuet, the\ngreatest theologian that France has ever produced, did his best to crush\nSimon. In Germany, Wasmuth, professor first at Rostock and afterward at\nKiel, hurled his Vindiciae at the innovators. Yet at this very moment\nthe battle was clearly won; the arguments of Capellus were irrefragable,\nand, despite the commands of bishops, the outcries of theologians,\nand the sneering of critics, his application of strictly scientific\nobservation and reasoning carried the day.\n\nYet a casual observer, long after the fate of the battle was really\nsettled, might have supposed that it was still in doubt. As is not\nunusual in theologic controversies, attempts were made to galvanize the\ndead doctrine into an appearance of life. Famous among these attempts\nwas that made as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century by two\nBremen theologians, Hase and Iken. They put forth a compilation in two\nhuge folios simultaneously at Leyden and Amsterdam, prominent in which\nwork is the treatise on The Integrity of Scripture, by Johann Andreas\nDanzius, Professor of Oriental Languages and Senior Member of the\nPhilosophical Faculty of Jena, and, to preface it, there was a formal\nand fulsome approval by three eminent professors of theology at Leyden.\nWith great fervour the author pointed out that \"religion itself depends\nabsolutely on the infallible inspiration, both verbal and literal, of\nthe Scripture text\"; and with impassioned eloquence he assailed the\nblasphemers who dared question the divine origin of the Hebrew points.\nBut this was really the last great effort. That the case was lost was\nseen by the fact that Danzius felt obliged to use other missiles than\narguments, and especially to call his opponents hard names. From this\nperiod the old sacred theory as to the origin of the Hebrew points may\nbe considered as dead and buried.\n\n\n\n\nII. THE SACRED THEORY OF LANGUAGE IN ITS SECOND FORM.\n\n\nBut the war was soon to be waged on a wider and far more important\nfield. The inspiration of the Hebrew punctuation having been given up,\nthe great orthodox body fell back upon the remainder of the theory,\nand intrenched this more strongly than ever: the theory that the Hebrew\nlanguage was the first of all languages--that which was spoken by the\nAlmighty, given by him to Adam, transmitted through Noah to the world\nafter the Deluge--and that the \"confusion of tongues\" was the origin of\nall other languages.\n\nIn giving account of this new phase of the struggle, it is well to go\nback a little. From the Revival of Learning and the Reformation had come\nthe renewed study of Hebrew in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,\nand thus the sacred doctrine regarding the origin of the Hebrew language\nreceived additional authority. All the early Hebrew grammars, from that\nof Reuchlin down, assert the divine origin and miraculous claims of\nHebrew. It is constantly mentioned as \"the sacred tongue\"--sancta\nlingua. In 1506, Reuchlin, though himself persecuted by a large faction\nin the Church for advanced views, refers to Hebrew as \"spoken by the\nmouth of God.\"\n\nThis idea was popularized by the edition of the Margarita Philosophica,\npublished at Strasburg in 1508. That work, in its successive editions\na mirror of human knowledge at the close of the Middle Ages and the\nopening of modern times, contains a curious introduction to the study of\nHebrew, In this it is declared that Hebrew was the original speech\n\"used between God and man and between men and angels.\" Its full-page\nfrontispiece represents Moses receiving from God the tables of stone\nwritten in Hebrew; and, as a conclusive argument, it reminds us that\nChrist himself, by choosing a Hebrew maid for his mother, made that his\nmother tongue.\n\nIt must be noted here, however, that Luther, in one of those outbursts\nof strong sense which so often appear in his career, enforced the\nexplanation that the words \"God said\" had nothing to do with the\narticulation of human language. Still, he evidently yielded to the\ngeneral view. In the Roman Church at the same period we have a typical\nexample of the theologic method applied to philology, as we have seen it\napplied to other sciences, in the statement by Luther's great opponent,\nCajetan, that the three languages of the inscription on the cross of\nCalvary \"were the representatives of all languages, because the number\nthree denotes perfection.\"\n\nIn 1538 Postillus made a very important endeavour at a comparative study\nof languages, but with the orthodox assumption that all were derived\nfrom one source, namely, the Hebrew. Naturally, Comparative Philology\nblundered and stumbled along this path into endless absurdities. The\nmost amazing efforts were made to trace back everything to the sacred\nlanguage. English and Latin dictionaries appeared, in which every word\nwas traced back to a Hebrew root. No supposition was too absurd in\nthis attempt to square Science with Scripture. It was declared that, as\nHebrew is written from right to left, it might be read either way, in\norder to produce a satisfactory etymology. The whole effort in all this\nsacred scholarship was, not to find what the truth is--not to see how\nthe various languages are to be classified, or from what source they\nare really derived--but to demonstrate what was supposed necessary to\nmaintain what was then held to be the truth of Scripture; namely, that\nall languages are derived from the Hebrew.\n\nThis stumbling and blundering, under the sway of orthodox necessity, was\nseen among the foremost scholars throughout Europe. About the middle of\nthe sixteenth century the great Swiss scholar, Conrad Gesner, beginning\nhis Mithridates, says, \"While of all languages Hebrew is the first and\noldest, of all is alone pure and unmixed, all the rest are much mixed,\nfor there is none which has not some words derived and corrupted from\nHebrew.\"\n\nTypical, as we approach the end of the sixteenth century, are the\nutterances of two of the most noted English divines. First of these\nmay be mentioned Dr. William Fulke, Master of Pembroke Hall, in the\nUniversity of Cambridge. In his Discovery of the Dangerous Rock of the\nRomish Church, published in 1580, he speaks of \"the Hebrew tongue,... the\nfirst tongue of the world, and for the excellency thereof called 'the\nholy tongue.'\"\n\nYet more emphatic, eight years later, was another eminent divine, Dr.\nWilliam Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity and Master of St. John's\nCollege at Cambridge. In his Disputation on Holy Scripture, first\nprinted in 1588, he says: \"The Hebrew is the most ancient of all\nlanguages, and was that which alone prevailed in the world before the\nDeluge and the erection of the Tower of Babel. For it was this which\nAdam used and all men before the Flood, as is manifest from the\nScriptures, as the fathers testify.\" He then proceeds to quote passages\non this subject from St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and others, and cites\nSt. Chrysostom in support of the statement that \"God himself showed the\nmodel and method of writing when he delivered the Law written by his own\nfinger to Moses.\"(415)\n\n\n     (415) For the whole scriptural argument, embracing the various texts on\nwhich the sacred science of Philology was founded, with the use made\nof such texts, see Benfey, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft in\nDeutschland, Munchen, 1869, pp. 22-26. As to the origin of the vowel\npoints, see Benfey, as above; he holds that they began to be inserted\nin the second century A.D., and that the process lasted until about the\ntenth. For Raymundus and his Pugio Fidei, see G. L. Bauer, Prolegomena\nto his revision of Glassius's Philologia Sacra, Leipsic, 1795,--see\nespecially pp. 8-14, in tome ii of the work. For Zwingli, see Praef. in\nApol. comp. Isaiae (Opera, iii). See also Morinus, De Lingua primaeva,\np.447. For Marini, see his Arca Noe: Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae, Venet.,\n1593, and especially the preface. For general account of Capellus,\nsee G. L. Bauer, in his Prolegomena, as above, vol. ii, pp. 8-14. His\nArcanum Premetationis Revelatum was brought out at Leyden in 1624; his\nCritica Sacra ten years later. See on Capellus and Swiss theologues,\nWolfius, Bibliotheca Nebr., tome ii, p. 27. For the struggle, see\nSchnedermann, Die Controverse des Ludovicus Capellus mit den Buxtorfen,\nLeipsic, 1879, cited in article Hebrew, in Encyclopaedia Britannica. For\nWasmuth, see his Vindiciae Sanctae Hebraicae Scripturae, Rostock, 1664.\nFor Reuchlin, see the dedicatory preface to his Rudimenta Hebraica,\nPforzheim, 1506, folio, in which he speaks of the \"in divina scriptura\ndicendi genus, quale os Dei locatum est.\" The statement in the Margarita\nPhilosophica as to Hebrew is doubtless based on Reuchlin's Rudimenta\nHebraica, which it quotes, and which first appeared in 1506. It is\nsignificant that this section disappeared from the Margarita in the\nfollowing editions; but this disappearence is easily understood when we\nrecall the fact that Gregory Reysch, its author, having become one\nof the Papal Commission to judge Reuchlin in his quarrel with the\nDominicans, thought it prudent to side with the latter, and therefore,\ndoubtless, considered it wise to suppress all evidence of Reuchlin's\ninfluence upon his beliefs. All the other editions of the Margarita in\nmy possession are content with teaching, under the head of the Alphabet,\nthat the Hebrew letters were invented by Adam. On Luther's view of\nthe words \"God said,\" see Farrar, Language and Languages. For a most\nvaluable statement regarding the clashing opinions at the Reformation,\nsee Max Muller, as above, lecture iv, p. 132. For the prevailing view\namong the Reformers, see Calovius, vol. i, p. 484, and Thulock, The\nDoctrine of Inspiration, in Theolog. Essays, Boston, 1867. Both Muller\nand Benfey note, as especially important, the difference between the\nChurch view and the ancient heathen view regarding \"barbarians.\" See\nMuller, as above, lecture iv, p. 127, and Benfey, as above, pp. 170 et\nseq. For a very remarkable list of Bibles printed at an early period,\nsee Benfey, p. 569. On the attempts to trace all words back to Hebrew\nroots, see Sayce, Introduction to the Science of Language, chap. vi. For\nGesner, see his Mithridates (de differentiis linguarum), Zurich, 1555.\nFor a similar attempt to prove that Italian was also derived from\nHebrew, see Giambullari, cited in Garlanda, p. 174. For Fulke, see\nthe Parker Society's Publications, 1848, p. 224. For Whitaker, see his\nDisputation on Holy Scripture in the same series, pp. 112-114.\n\n\nThis sacred theory entered the seventeenth century in full force, and\nfor a time swept everything before it. Eminent commentators, Catholic\nand Protestant, accepted and developed it.\n\nGreat prelates, Catholic and Protestant, stood guard over it, favouring\nthose who supported it, doing their best to destroy those who would\nmodify it.\n\nIn 1606 Stephen Guichard built new buttresses for it in Catholic France.\nHe explains in his preface that his intention is \"to make the reader see\nin the Hebrew word not only the Greek and Latin, but also the Italian,\nthe Spanish, the French, the German, the Flemish, the English, and many\nothers from all languages.\" As the merest tyro in philology can now see,\nthe great difficulty that Guichard encounters is in getting from the\nHebrew to the Aryan group of languages. How he meets this difficulty may\nbe imagined from his statement, as follows: \"As for the derivation of\nwords by addition, subtraction, and inversion of the letters, it is\ncertain that this can and ought thus to be done, if we would find\netymologies--a thing which becomes very credible when we consider that\nthe Hebrews wrote from right to left and the Greeks and others from\nleft to right. All the learned recognise such derivations as\nnecessary;... and... certainly otherwise one could scarcely trace any\netymology back to Hebrew.\"\n\nOf course, by this method of philological juggling, anything could be\nproved which the author thought necessary to his pious purpose.\n\nTwo years later, Andrew Willett published at London his Hexapla,\nor Sixfold Commentary upon Genesis. In this he insists that the\none language of all mankind in the beginning \"was the Hebrew tongue\npreserved still in Heber's family.\" He also takes pains to say that the\nTower of Babel \"was not so called of Belus, as some have imagined, but\nof confusion, for so the Hebrew word ballal signifieth\"; and he quotes\nfrom St. Chrysostom to strengthen his position.\n\nIn 1627 Dr. Constantine l'Empereur was inducted into the chair of\nPhilosophy of the Sacred Language in the University of Leyden. In his\ninaugural oration on The Dignity and Utility of the Hebrew Tongue, he\nputs himself on record in favour of the Divine origin and miraculous\npurity of that language. \"Who,\" he says, \"can call in question the fact\nthat the Hebrew idiom is coeval with the world itself, save such as seek\nto win vainglory for their own sophistry?\"\n\nTwo years after Willett, in England, comes the famous Dr. Lightfoot, the\nmost renowned scholar of his time in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; but\nall his scholarship was bent to suit theological requirements. In his\nErubhin, published in 1629, he goes to the full length of the sacred\ntheory, though we begin to see a curious endeavour to get over some\nlinguistic difficulties.\n\nOne passage will serve to show both the robustness of his faith and the\nacuteness of his reasoning, in view of the difficulties which scholars\nnow began to find in the sacred theory.\" Other commendations this tongue\n(Hebrew) needeth none than what it hath of itself; namely, for sanctity\nit was the tongue of God; and for antiquity it was the tongue of Adam.\nGod the first founder, and Adam the first speaker of it.... It began with\nthe world and the Church, and continued and increased in glory till the\ncaptivity in Babylon.... As the man in Seneca, that through sickness lost\nhis memory and forgot his own name, so the Jews, for their sins, lost\ntheir language and forgot their own tongue.... Before the confusion of\ntongues all the world spoke their tongue and no other but since the\nconfusion of the Jews they speak the language of all the world and not\ntheir own.\"\n\nBut just at the middle of the century (1657) came in England a champion\nof the sacred theory more important than any of these--Brian Walton,\nBishop of Chester. His Polyglot Bible dominated English scriptural\ncriticism throughout the remainder of the century. He prefaces his\ngreat work by proving at length the divine origin of Hebrew, and\nthe derivation from it of all other forms of speech. He declares it\n\"probable that the first parent of mankind was the inventor of letters.\"\nHis chapters on this subject are full of interesting details. He says\nthat the Welshman, Davis, had already tried to prove the Welsh the\nprimitive speech; Wormius, the Danish; Mitilerius, the German; but the\nbishop stands firmly by the sacred theory, informing us that \"even in\nthe New World are found traces of the Hebrew tongue, namely, in New\nEngland and in New Belgium, where the word Aguarda signifies earth,\nand the name Joseph is found among the Hurons.\" As we have seen, Bishop\nWalton had been forced to give up the inspiration of the rabbinical\npunctuation, but he seems to have fallen back with all the more tenacity\non what remained of the great sacred theory of language, and to have\nbecome its leading champion among English-speaking peoples.\n\nAt that same period the same doctrine was put forth by a great authority\nin Germany. In 1657 Andreas Sennert published his inaugural address\nas Professor of Sacred Letters and Dean of the Theological Faculty at\nWittenberg. All his efforts were given to making Luther's old university\na fortress of the orthodox theory. His address, like many others in\nvarious parts of Europe, shows that in his time an inaugural with any\nsave an orthodox statement of the theological platform would not be\ntolerated. Few things in the past are to the sentimental mind more\npathetic, to the philosophical mind more natural, and to the progressive\nmind more ludicrous, than addresses at high festivals of theological\nschools. The audience has generally consisted mainly of estimable\nelderly gentlemen, who received their theology in their youth, and who\nin their old age have watched over it with jealous care to keep it well\nprotected from every fresh breeze of thought. Naturally, a theological\nprofessor inaugurated under such auspices endeavours to propitiate his\naudience. Sennert goes to great lengths both in his address and in his\ngrammar, published nine years later; for, declaring the Divine origin of\nHebrew to be quite beyond controversy, he says: \"Noah received it from\nour first parents, and guarded it in the midst of the waters; Heber and\nPeleg saved it from the confusion of tongues.\"\n\nThe same doctrine was no less loudly insisted upon by the greatest\nauthority in Switzerland, Buxtorf, professor at Basle, who proclaimed\nHebrew to be \"the tongue of God, the tongue of angels, the tongue of the\nprophets\"; and the effect of this proclamation may be imagined when we\nnote in 1663 that his book had reached its sixth edition.\n\nIt was re-echoed through England, Germany, France, and America, and,\nif possible, yet more highly developed. In England Theophilus Gale set\nhimself to prove that not only all the languages, but all the learning\nof the world, had been drawn from the Hebrew records.\n\nThis orthodox doctrine was also fully vindicated in Holland. Six\nyears before the close of the seventeenth century, Morinus, Doctor of\nTheology, Professor of Oriental Languages, and pastor at Amsterdam,\npublished his great work on Primaeval Language. Its frontispiece depicts\nthe confusion of tongues at Babel, and, as a pendant to this, the\npentecostal gift of tongues to the apostles. In the successive chapters\nof the first book he proves that language could not have come into\nexistence save as a direct gift from heaven; that there is a primitive\nlanguage, the mother of all the rest; that this primitive language still\nexists in its pristine purity; that this language is the Hebrew. The\nsecond book is devoted to proving that the Hebrew letters were divinely\nreceived, have been preserved intact, and are the source of all other\nalphabets. But in the third book he feels obliged to allow, in the face\nof the contrary dogma held, as he says, by \"not a few most eminent\nmen piously solicitous for the authority of the sacred text,\" that the\nHebrew punctuation was, after all, not of Divine inspiration, but a late\ninvention of the rabbis.\n\nFrance, also, was held to all appearance in complete subjection to the\northodox idea up to the end of the century. In 1697 appeared at Paris\nperhaps the most learned of all the books written to prove Hebrew the\noriginal tongue and source of all others. The Gallican Church was\nthen at the height of its power. Bossuet as bishop, as thinker, and as\nadviser of Louis XIV, had crushed all opposition to orthodoxy. The Edict\nof Nantes had been revoked, and the Huguenots, so far as they could\nescape, were scattered throughout the world, destined to repay France\nwith interest a thousandfold during the next two centuries. The bones of\nthe Jansenists at Port Royal were dug up and scattered. Louis XIV stood\nguard over the piety of his people. It was in the midst of this series\nof triumphs that Father Louis Thomassin, Priest of the Oratory, issued\nhis Universal Hebrew Glossary. In this, to use his own language, \"the\ndivinity, antiquity, and perpetuity of the Hebrew tongue, with its\nletters, accents, and other characters,\" are established forever and\nbeyond all cavil, by proofs drawn from all peoples, kindreds, and\nnations under the sun. This superb, thousand-columned folio was issued\nfrom the royal press, and is one of the most imposing monuments of human\npiety and folly--taking rank with the treatises of Fromundus against\nGalileo, of Quaresmius on Lot's Wife, and of Gladstone on Genesis and\nGeology.\n\nThe great theologic-philologic chorus was steadily maintained, and, as\nin a responsive chant, its doctrines were echoed from land to land. From\nAmerica there came the earnest words of John Eliot, praising Hebrew\nas the most fit to be made a universal language, and declaring it the\ntongue \"which it pleased our Lord Jesus to make use of when he spake\nfrom heaven unto Paul.\" At the close of the seventeenth century came\nfrom England a strong antiphonal answer in this chorus; Meric Casaubon,\nthe learned Prebendary of Canterbury, thus declared: \"One language, the\nHebrew, I hold to be simply and absolutely the source of all.\" And, to\nswell the chorus, there came into it, in complete unison, the voice\nof Bentley--the greatest scholar of the old sort whom England has ever\nproduced. He was, indeed, one of the most learned and acute critics of\nany age; but he was also Master of Trinity, Archdeacon of Bristol, held\ntwo livings besides, and enjoyed the honour of refusing the bishopric of\nBristol, as not rich enough to tempt him. Noblesse oblige: that Bentley\nshould hold a brief for the theological side was inevitable, and we\nneed not be surprised when we hear him declaring: \"We are sure, from the\nnames of persons and places mentioned in Scripture before the Deluge,\nnot to insist upon other arguments, that the Hebrew was the primitive\nlanguage of mankind, and that it continued pure above three thousand\nyears until the captivity in Babylon.\" The power of the theologic bias,\nwhen properly stimulated with ecclesiastical preferment, could hardly\nbe more perfectly exemplified than in such a captivity of such a man as\nBentley.\n\nYet here two important exceptions should be noted. In England, Prideaux,\nwhose biblical studies gave him much authority, opposed the dominant\nopinion; and in America, Cotton Mather, who in taking his Master's\ndegree at Harvard had supported the doctrine that the Hebrew vowel\npoints were of divine origin, bravely recanted and declared for the\nbetter view.(416)\n\n\n     (416) The quotation from Guichard is from L'Harmonie Etymologique des\nLangues,... dans laquelle par plusiers Antiquites et Etymologies\nde toute sorte, je demonstre evidemment que toutes les langues sont\ndescendues de l'Hebraique; par M. Estienne Guichard, Paris, 1631. The\nfirst edition appeared in 1606. For Willett, see his Hexapla, London,\n1608, pp. 125-128. For the Address of L'Empereur, see his publication,\nLeyden, 1627. The quotation from Lightfoot, beginning \"Other\ncommendations,\" etc., is taken from his Erubhin, or Miscellanies,\nedition of 1629; see also his works, vol. iv, pp. 46, 47, London, 1822.\nFor Bishop Brian Walton, see the Cambridge edition of his works, 1828,\nProlegomena S 1 and 3. As to Walton's giving up the rabbinical points,\nhe mentions in one of the latest editions of his works the fact that\nIsaac Casabon, Joseph Scaliger, Isaac Vossius, Grotius, Beza, Luther,\nZwingli, Brentz, Oecolampadius, Calvin, and even some of the Popes were\nwith him in this. For Sennert, see his Dissertation de Ebraicae S. S.\nLinguae Origine, etc., Wittenberg, 1657; also his Grammitica Orientalis,\nWittenberg, 1666. For Buxtorf, see the preface to his Thesaurus\nGrammaticus Linguae Sanctae Hebraeae, sixth edition, 1663. For Gale,\nsee his Court of the Gentiles, Oxford, 1672. For Morinus, see his\nExercitationes de Lingua Primaeva, Utrecht, 1697. For Thomassin, see\nhis Glossarium Universale Hebraicum, Paris, 1697. For John Eliot's\nutterance, see Mather's Magnalia, book iii, p. 184. For Meric Casaubon,\nsee his De Lingua Anglia Vet., p. 160, cited by Massey, p. 16 of Origin\nand Progress of Letters. For Bentley, see his works, London, 1836, vol.\nii, p. 11, and citations by Welsford, Mithridates Minor, p. 2. As to\nBentley's position as a scholar, see the famous estimate in Macaulay's\nEssays. For a short but very interesting account of him, see Mark\nPattison's article in vol. iii of the last edition of the Encyclopaedia\nBritannica. The postion of Pattison as an agnostic dignitary in the\nEnglish Church eminently fitted him to understand Bentley's career, both\nas regards the orthodox and the scholastic world. For perhaps the\nmost striking account of the manner in which Bentley lorded it in the\nscholastic world of his time, see Monk's Life of Bentley, vol. ii, chap.\nxvii, and especially his contemptuous reply to the judges, as given in\nvol. ii, pp. 211, 212. For Cotton Mather, see his biography by Samuel\nMather, Boston, 1729, pp. 5, 6.\n\n\nBut even this dissent produced little immediate effect, and at the\nbeginning of the eighteenth century this sacred doctrine, based upon\nexplicit statements of Scripture, seemed forever settled. As we have\nseen, strong fortresses had been built for it in every Christian land:\nnothing seemed more unlikely than that the little groups of scholars\nscattered through these various countries could ever prevail against\nthem. These strongholds were built so firmly, and had behind them so\nvast an army of religionists of every creed, that to conquer them seemed\nimpossible. And yet at that very moment their doom was decreed. Within\na few years from this period of their greatest triumph, the garrisons of\nall these sacred fortresses were in hopeless confusion, and the armies\nbehind them in full retreat; a little later, all the important orthodox\nfortresses and forces were in the hands of the scientific philologists.\n\nHow this came about will be shown in the third part of this chapter.\n\n\n\n\nIII. BREAKING DOWN OF THE THEOLOGICAL VIEW.\n\n\nWe have now seen the steps by which the sacred theory of human language\nhad been developed: how it had been strengthened in every land until\nit seemed to bid defiance forever to advancing thought; how it rested\nfirmly upon the letter of Scripture, upon the explicit declarations of\nleading fathers of the Church, of the great doctors of the Middle Ages,\nof the most eminent theological scholars down to the beginning of the\neighteenth century, and was guarded by the decrees of popes, kings,\nbishops, Catholic and Protestant, and the whole hierarchy of authorities\nin church and state.\n\nAnd yet, as we now look back, it is easy to see that even in that hour\nof its triumph it was doomed.\n\nThe reason why the Church has so fully accepted the conclusions of\nscience which have destroyed the sacred theory is instructive. The\nstudy of languages has been, since the Revival of Learning and the\nReformation, a favourite study with the whole Western Church, Catholic\nand Protestant. The importance of understanding the ancient tongues in\nwhich our sacred books are preserved first stimulated the study, and\nChurch missionary efforts have contributed nobly to supply the material\nfor extending it, and for the application of that comparative method\nwhich, in philology as in other sciences, has been so fruitful. Hence it\nis that so many leading theologians have come to know at first hand\nthe truths given by this science, and to recognise its fundamental\nprinciples. What the conclusions which they, as well as all other\nscholars in this field, have been absolutely forced to accept, I shall\nnow endeavour to show.\n\nThe beginnings of a scientific theory seemed weak indeed, but they were\nnone the less effective. As far back as 1661, Hottinger, professor at\nHeidelberg, came into the chorus of theologians like a great bell in\na chime; but like a bell whose opening tone is harmonious and whose\nclosing tone is discordant. For while, at the beginning, Hottinger cites\na formidable list of great scholars who had held the sacred theory of\nthe origin of language, he goes on to note a closer resemblance to the\nHebrew in some languages than in others, and explains this by declaring\nthat the confusion of tongues was of two sorts, total and partial: the\nArabic and Chaldaic he thinks underwent only a partial confusion; the\nEgyptian, Persian, and all the European languages a total one. Here\ncomes in the discord; here gently sounds forth from the great chorus\na new note--that idea of grouping and classifying languages which at a\nlater day was to destroy utterly the whole sacred theory.\n\nBut the great chorus resounded on, as we have seen, from shore to shore,\nuntil the closing years of the seventeenth century; then arose men\nwho silenced it forever. The first leader who threw the weight of his\nknowledge, thought, and authority against it was Leibnitz. He declared,\n\"There is as much reason for supposing Hebrew to have been the primitive\nlanguage of mankind as there is for adopting the view of Goropius, who\npublished a work at Antwerp in 1580 to prove that Dutch was the language\nspoken in paradise.\"\n\nIn a letter to Tenzel, Leibnitz wrote, \"To call Hebrew the primitive\nlanguage is like calling the branches of a tree primitive branches, or\nlike imagining that in some country hewn trunks could grow instead of\ntrees.\" He also asked, \"If the primeval language existed even up to the\ntime of Moses, whence came the Egyptian language?\"\n\nBut the efficiency of Leibnitz did not end with mere suggestions. He\napplied the inductive method to linguistic study, made great efforts to\nhave vocabularies collected and grammars drawn up wherever missionaries\nand travellers came in contact with new races, and thus succeeded in\ngiving the initial impulse to at least three notable collections--that\nof Catharine the Great, of Russia; that of the Spanish Jesuit, Lorenzo\nHervas; and, at a later period, the Mithridates of Adelung. The interest\nof the Empress Catharine in her collection of linguistic materials was\nvery strong, and her influence is seen in the fact that Washington, to\nplease her, requested governors and generals to send in materials from\nvarious parts of the United States and the Territories. The work of\nHervas extended over the period from 1735 to 1809: a missionary in\nAmerica, he enlarged his catalogue of languages to six volumes, which\nwere published in Spanish in 1800, and contained specimens of more than\nthree hundred languages, with the grammars of more than forty. It should\nbe said to his credit that Hervas dared point out with especial care the\nlimits of the Semitic family of languages, and declared, as a result of\nhis enormous studies, that the various languages of mankind could not\nhave been derived from the Hebrew.\n\nWhile such work was done in Catholic Spain, Protestant Germany was\nhonoured by the work of Adelung. It contained the Lord's Prayer in\nnearly five hundred languages and dialects, and the comparison of these,\nearly in the nineteenth century, helped to end the sway of theological\nphilology.\n\nBut the period which intervened between Leibnitz and this modern\ndevelopment was a period of philological chaos. It began mainly with the\ndoubts which Leibnitz had forced upon Europe, and ended only with the\nbeginning of the study of Sanskrit in the latter half of the eighteenth\ncentury, and with the comparisons made by means of the collections of\nCatharine, Hervas, and Adelung at the beginning of the nineteenth. The\nold theory that Hebrew was the original language had gone to pieces;\nbut nothing had taken its place as a finality. Great authorities,\nlike Buddeus, were still cited in behalf of the narrower belief; but\neverywhere researches, unorganized though they were, tended to destroy\nit. The story of Babel continued indeed throughout the whole eighteenth\ncentury to hinder or warp scientific investigation, and a very curious\nillustration of this fact is seen in the book of Lord Nelme on The\nOrigin and Elements of Language. He declares that connected with the\nconfusion was the cleaving of America from Europe, and he regards the\nmost terrible chapters in the book of Job as intended for a description\nof the Flood, which in all probability Job had from Noah himself. Again,\nRowland Jones tried to prove that Celtic was the primitive tongue, and\nthat it passed through Babel unharmed. Still another effect was made by\na Breton to prove that all languages took their rise in the language of\nBrittany. All was chaos. There was much wrangling, but little earnest\ncontroversy. Here and there theologians were calling out frantically,\nbeseeching the Church to save the old doctrine as \"essential to the\ntruth of Scripture\"; here and there other divines began to foreshadow\nthe inevitable compromise which has always been thus vainly attempted in\nthe history of every science. But it was soon seen by thinking men that\nno concessions as yet spoken of by theologians were sufficient. In\nthe latter half of the century came the bloom period of the French\nphilosophers and encyclopedists, of the English deists, of such German\nthinkers as Herder, Kant, and Lessing; and while here and there some\nwriter on the theological side, like Perrin, amused thinking men by\nhis flounderings in this great chaos, all remained without form and\nvoid.(417)\n\n\n     (417) For Hottinger, see the preface to his Etymologicum Orientale,\nFrankfort, 1661. For Leibnitz, Catharine the Great, Hervas, and Adelung,\nsee Max Muller, as above, from whom I have quoted very fully; see also\nBenfey, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, etc., p. 269. Benfey declares\nthat the Catalogue of Hervas is even now a mine for the philologist. For\nthe first two citations from Leibnitz, as well as for a statement of his\nimportance in the history of languages, see Max Muller, as above, pp.\n135, 136. For the third quotation, Leibnitz, Opera, Geneva, 1768, vi,\npart ii, p. 232. For Nelme, see his Origin and Elements of Language,\nLondon, 1772, pp. 85-100. For Rowland Jones, see The Origin of Language\nand Nations, London, 1764, and preface. For the origin of languages in\nBrittany, see Le Brigant, Paris, 1787. For Herder and Lessing, see Canon\nFarrar's treatise; on Lessing, see Sayce, as above. As to Perrin, see\nhis essay Sur l'Origine et l'Antiquite des Langues, London, 1767.\n\n\nNothing better reveals to us the darkness and duration of this chaos\nin England than a comparison of the articles on Philology given in the\nsuccessive editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. The first edition\nof that great mirror of British thought was printed in 1771: chaos\nreigns through the whole of its article on this subject. The writer\ndivides languages into two classes, seems to indicate a mixture of\ndivine inspiration with human invention, and finally escapes under a\ncloud. In the second edition, published in 1780, some progress has been\nmade. The author states the sacred theory, and declares: \"There are some\ndivines who pretend that Hebrew was the language in which God talked\nwith Adam in paradise, and that the saints will make use of it in heaven\nin those praises which they will eternally offer to the Almighty. These\ndoctors seem to be as certain in regard to what is past as to what is to\ncome.\"\n\nThis was evidently considered dangerous. It clearly outran the belief\nof the average British Philistine; and accordingly we find in the third\nedition, published seventeen years later, a new article, in which, while\nthe author gives, as he says, \"the best arguments on both sides,\" he\ntakes pains to adhere to a fairly orthodox theory.\n\nThis soothing dose was repeated in the fourth and fifth editions. In\n1824 appeared a supplement to the fourth, fifth, and sixth editions,\nwhich dealt with the facts so far as they were known; but there was\nscarcely a reference to the biblical theory throughout the article.\nThree years later came another supplement. While this chaos was fast\nbecoming cosmos in Germany, such a change had evidently not gone far\nin England, for from this edition of the Encyclopaedia the subject of\nphilology was omitted. In fact, Babel and Philology made nearly as much\ntrouble to encyclopedists as Noah's Deluge and Geology. Just as in\nthe latter case they had been obliged to stave off a presentation of\nscientific truth, by the words \"For Deluge, see Flood\" and \"For\nFlood, see Noah,\" so in the former they were obliged to take various\nprovisional measures, some of them comical. In 1842 came the seventh\nedition. In this the first part of the old article on Philology which\nhad appeared in the third, fourth, and fifth editions was printed, but\nthe supernatural part was mainly cut out. Yet we find a curious\nevidence of the continued reign of chaos in a foot-note inserted by\nthe publishers, disavowing any departure from orthodox views. In 1859\nappeared the eighth edition. This abandoned the old article completely,\nand in its place gave a history of philology free from admixture of\nscriptural doctrines.\n\nFinally, in the year 1885, appeared the ninth edition, in which\nProfessors Whitney of Yale and Sievers of Tubingen give admirably and in\nfair compass what is known of philology, making short work of the sacred\ntheory--in fact, throwing it overboard entirely.\n\n\n\n\nIV. TRIUMPH OF THE NEW SCIENCE.\n\n\nSuch was that chaos of thought into which the discovery of Sanskrit\nsuddenly threw its great light. Well does one of the foremost modern\nphilologists say that this \"was the electric spark which caused the\nfloating elements to crystallize into regular forms.\" Among the first to\nbring the knowledge of Sanskrit to Europe were the Jesuit missionaries,\nwhose services to the material basis of the science of comparative\nphilology had already been so great; and the importance of the new\ndiscovery was soon seen among all scholars, whether orthodox or\nscientific. In 1784 the Asiatic Society at Calcutta was founded, and\nwith it began Sanskrit philology. Scholars like Sir William Jones,\nCarey, Wilkins, Foster, Colebrooke, did noble work in the new field. A\nnew spirit brooded over that chaos, and a great new orb of science was\nevolved.\n\nThe little group of scholars who gave themselves up to these researches,\nthough almost without exception reverent Christians, were recognised\nat once by theologians as mortal foes of the whole sacred theory of\nlanguage. Not only was the dogma of the multiplication of languages\nat the Tower of Babel swept out of sight by the new discovery, but the\nstill more vital dogma of the divine origin of language, never\nbefore endangered, was felt to be in peril, since the evidence became\noverwhelming that so many varieties had been produced by a process of\nnatural growth.\n\nHeroic efforts were therefore made, in the supposed interest of\nScripture, to discredit the new learning. Even such a man as Dugald\nStewart declared that the discovery of Sanskrit was altogether\nfraudulent, and endeavoured to prove that the Brahmans had made it up\nfrom the vocabulary and grammar of Greek and Latin. Others exercised\ntheir ingenuity in picking the new discovery to pieces, and still others\nattributed it all to the machinations of Satan.\n\nOn the other hand, the more thoughtful men in the Church endeavoured to\nsave something from the wreck of the old system by a compromise. They\nattempted to prove that Hebrew is at least a cognate tongue with the\noriginal speech of mankind, if not the original speech itself; but\nhere they were confronted by the authority they dreaded most--the great\nChristian scholar, Sir William Jones himself. His words were: \"I can\nonly declare my belief that the language of Noah is irretrievably lost.\nAfter diligent search I can not find a single word used in common by\nthe Arabian, Indian, and Tartar families, before the intermixture of\ndialects occasioned by the Mohammedan conquests.\"\n\nSo, too, in Germany came full acknowledgment of the new truth, and from\na Roman Catholic, Frederick Schlegel. He accepted the discoveries in the\nold language and literature of India as final: he saw the significance\nof these discoveries as regards philology, and grouped the languages of\nIndia, Persia, Greece, Italy, and Germany under the name afterward so\nuniversally accepted--Indo-Germanic.\n\nIt now began to be felt more and more, even among the most devoted\nchurchmen, that the old theological dogmas regarding the origin of\nlanguage, as held \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" were wrong, and that\nLucretius and sturdy old Gregory of Nyssa might be right.\n\nBut this was not the only wreck. During ages the great men in the Church\nhad been calling upon the world to admire the amazing exploit of Adam in\nnaming the animals which Jehovah had brought before him, and to accept\nthe history of language in the light of this exploit. The early fathers,\nthe mediaeval doctors, the great divines of the Reformation period,\nCatholic and Protestant, had united in this universal chorus. Clement\nof Alexandria declared Adam's naming of the animals proof of a prophetic\ngift. St. John Chrysostom insisted that it was an evidence of consummate\nintelligence. Eusebius held that the phrase \"That was the name thereof\"\nimplied that each name embodied the real character and description of\nthe animal concerned.\n\nThis view was echoed by a multitude of divines in the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries. Typical among these was the great Dr. South, who,\nin his sermon on The State of Man before the Fall, declared that \"Adam\ncame into the world a philosopher, which sufficiently appears by his\nwriting the nature of things upon their names.\"\n\nIn the chorus of modern English divines there appeared one of eminence\nwho declared against this theory: Dr. Shuckford, chaplain in ordinary\nto his Majesty George II, in the preface to his work on The Creation and\nFall of Man, pronounced the whole theory \"romantic and irrational.\" He\ngoes on to say: \"The original of our speaking was from God; not that God\nput into Adam's mouth the very sounds which he designed he should use as\nthe names of things; but God made Adam with the powers of a man; he had\nthe use of an understanding to form notions in his mind of the things\nabout him, and he had the power to utter sounds which should be to\nhimself the names of things according as he might think fit to call\nthem.\"\n\nThis echo of Gregory of Nyssa was for many years of little avail.\nHistorians of philosophy still began with Adam, because only a\nphilosopher could have named all created things. There was, indeed,\none difficulty which had much troubled some theologians: this was, that\nfishes were not specially mentioned among the animals brought by Jehovah\nbefore Adam for naming. To meet this difficulty there was much argument,\nand some theologians laid stress on the difficulty of bringing fishes\nfrom the sea to the Garden of Eden to receive their names; but naturally\nother theologians replied that the almighty power which created the\nfishes could have easily brought them into the garden, one by one, even\nfrom the uttermost parts of the sea. This point, therefore, seems to\nhave been left in abeyance.(418)\n\n\n     (418) For the danger of \"the little system of the history of the world,\"\nsee Sayce, as above. On Dugald Stewart's contention, see Max Muller,\nLectures on Language, pp. 167, 168. For Sir William Jones, see his\nWorks, London, 1807, vol. i, p. 199. For Schlegel, see Max Muller, as\nabove. For an enormous list of great theologians, from the fathers down,\nwho dwelt on the divine inspiration and wonderful gifts of Adam on this\nsubject, see Canon Farrar, Language and Languages. The citation from\nClement of Alexandria is Strom.. i, p. 335. See also Chrysostom, Hom.\nXIV in Genesin; also Eusebius, Praep. Evang. XI, p. 6. For the two\nquotations given above from Shuckford, see The Creation and Fall of Man,\nLondon, 1763, preface, p. lxxxiii; also his Sacred and Profane History\nof the World, 1753; revised edition by Wheeler, London, 1858. For the\nargument regarding the difficulty of bringing the fishes to be named\ninto the Garden of Eden, see Massey, Origin and Progress of Letters,\nLondon, 1763, pp. 14-19.\n\n\nIt had continued, then, the universal belief in the Church that the\nnames of all created things, except possibly fishes, were given by Adam\nand in Hebrew; but all this theory was whelmed in ruin when it was found\nthat there were other and indeed earlier names for the same animals\nthan those in the Hebrew language; and especially was this enforced on\nthinking men when the Egyptian discoveries began to reveal the pictures\nof animals with their names in hieroglyphics at a period earlier than\nthat agreed on by all the sacred chronologists as the date of the\nCreation.\n\nStill another part of the sacred theory now received its death-blow.\nClosely allied with the question of the origin of language was that of\nthe origin of letters. The earlier writers had held that letters were\nalso a divine gift to Adam; but as we go on in the eighteenth century\nwe find theological opinion inclining to the belief that this gift was\nreserved for Moses. This, as we have seen, was the view of St. John\nChrysostom; and an eminent English divine early in the eighteenth\ncentury, John Johnson, Vicar of Kent, echoed it in the declaration\nconcerning the alphabet, that \"Moses first learned it from God by\nmeans of the lettering on the tables of the law.\" But here a difficulty\narose--the biblical statement that God commanded Moses to \"write in a\nbook\" his decree concerning Amalek before he went up into Sinai.\nWith this the good vicar grapples manfully. He supposes that God had\npreviously concealed the tables of stone in Mount Horeb, and that\nMoses, \"when he kept Jethro's sheep thereabout, had free access to these\ntables, and perused them at discretion, though he was not permitted\nto carry them down with him.\" Our reconciler then asks for what other\nreason could God have kept Moses up in the mountain forty days at a\ntime, except to teach him to write; and says, \"It seems highly probable\nthat the angel gave him the alphabet of the Hebrew, or in some other way\nunknown to us became his guide.\"\n\nBut this theory of letters was soon to be doomed like the other parts\nof the sacred theory. Studies in Comparative Philology, based upon\nresearches in India, began to be reenforced by facts regarding the\ninscriptions in Egypt, the cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria, the\nlegends of Chaldea, and the folklore of China--where it was found in the\nsacred books that the animals were named by Fohi, and with such wisdom\nand insight that every name disclosed the nature of the corresponding\nanimal.\n\nBut, although the old theory was doomed, heroic efforts were still made\nto support it. In 1788 James Beattie, in all the glory of his Oxford\ndoctorate and royal pension, made a vigorous onslaught, declaring the\nnew system of philology to be \"degrading to our nature,\" and that the\ntheory of the natural development of language is simply due to the\nbeauty of Lucretius' poetry. But his main weapon was ridicule, and in\nthis he showed himself a master. He tells the world, \"The following\nparaphrase has nothing of the elegance of Horace or Lucretius, but seems\nto have all the elegance that so ridiculous a doctrine deserves\":\n\n\"When men out of the earth of old A dumb and beastly vermin crawled;\nFor acorns, first, and holes of shelter, They tooth and nail, and helter\nskelter, Fought fist to fist; then with a club Each learned his brother\nbrute to drub; Till, more experienced grown, these cattle Forged fit\naccoutrements for battle. At last (Lucretius says and Creech) They set\ntheir wits to work on SPEECH: And that their thoughts might all have\nmarks To make them known, these learned clerks Left off the trade of\ncracking crowns, And manufactured verbs and nouns.\"\n\n\nBut a far more powerful theologian entered the field in England to save\nthe sacred theory of language--Dr. Adam Clarke. He was no less severe\nagainst Philology than against Geology. In 1804, as President of the\nManchester Philological Society, he delivered an address in which he\ndeclared that, while men of all sects were eligible to membership,\n\"he who rejects the establishment of what we believe to be a divine\nrevelation, he who would disturb the peace of the quiet, and by doubtful\ndisputations unhinge the minds of the simple and unreflecting, and\nendeavour to turn the unwary out of the way of peace and rational\nsubordination, can have no seat among the members of this institution.\"\nThe first sentence in this declaration gives food for reflection, for it\nis the same confusion of two ideas which has been at the root of so much\ninterference of theology with science for the last two thousand years.\nAdam Clarke speaks of those \"who reject the establishment of what,\nWE BELIEVE, to be a divine revelation.\" Thus comes in that customary\nbegging of the question--the substitution, as the real significance of\nScripture, of \"WHAT WE BELIEVE\" for what IS.\n\nThe intended result, too, of this ecclesiastical sentence was simple\nenough. It was, that great men like Sir William Jones, Colebrooke, and\ntheir compeers, must not be heard in the Manchester Philological Society\nin discussion with Dr. Adam Clarke on questions regarding Sanskrit and\nother matters regarding which they knew all that was then known, and Dr.\nClarke knew nothing.\n\nBut even Clarke was forced to yield to the scientific current. Thirty\nyears later, in his Commentary on the Old Testament, he pitched the\nclaims of the sacred theory on a much lower key. He says: \"Mankind was\nof one language, in all likelihood the Hebrew.... The proper names and\nother significations given in the Scripture seem incontestable evidence\nthat the Hebrew language was the original language of the earth,--the\nlanguage in which God spoke to man, and in which he gave the revelation\nof his will to Moses and the prophets.\" Here are signs that this great\nchampion is growing weaker in the faith: in the citations made it will\nbe observed he no longer says \"IS,\" but \"SEEMS\"; and finally we have him\nsaying, \"What the first language was is almost useless to inquire, as it\nis impossible to arrive at any satisfactory information on this point.\"\n\nIn France, during the first half of the nineteenth century, yet\nmore heavy artillery was wheeled into place, in order to make a last\ndesperate defence of the sacred theory. The leaders in this effort were\nthe three great Ultramontanes, De Maistre, De Bonald, and Lamennais.\nCondillac's contention that \"languages were gradually and insensibly\nacquired, and that every man had his share of the general result,\"\nthey attacked with reasoning based upon premises drawn from the book of\nGenesis. De Maistre especially excelled in ridiculing the philosophic or\nscientific theory. Lamennais, who afterward became so vexatious a thorn\nin the side of the Church, insisted, at this earlier period, that \"man\ncan no more think without words than see without light.\" And then, by\nthat sort of mystical play upon words so well known in the higher ranges\nof theologic reasoning, he clinches his argument by saying, \"The Word is\ntruly and in every sense 'the light which lighteth every man that cometh\ninto the world.'\"\n\nBut even such champions as these could not stay the progress of thought.\nWhile they seemed to be carrying everything before them in France,\nresearches in philology made at such centres of thought as the Sorbonne\nand the College of France were undermining their last great fortress.\nCurious indeed is it to find that the Sorbonne, the stronghold of\ntheology through so many centuries, was now made in the nineteenth\ncentury the arsenal and stronghold of the new ideas. But the most\nstriking result of the new tendency in France was seen when the greatest\nof the three champions, Lamennais himself, though offered the highest\nChurch preferment, and even a cardinal's hat, braved the papal anathema,\nand went over to the scientific side.(419)\n\n\n     (419) For Johnson's work, showing how Moses learned the alphabet, see\nthe Collection of Discourses by Rev. John Johnson, A. M., Vicar of Kent,\nLondon, 1728, p. 42, and the preface. For Beattie, see his Theory of\nLanguage, London, 1788, p. 98; also pp. 100, 101. For Adam Clarke, see,\nfor the speech cited, his Miscellaneous Works, London, 1837; for the\npassage from his Commentary, see the London edition of 1836, vol. i,\np. 93; for the other passage, see Introduction to Bibliographical\nMiscellany, quoted in article, Origin of Language and Alphabetical\nCharacters, in Methodist Magazine, vol. xv, p. 214. For De Bonald,\nsee his Recherches Philosophiques, part iii, chap. ii, De l'Origine du\nLanguage, in his Oeuvres, Bruxelles, 1852, vol. i, Les Soirees de Saint\nPetersbourg, deuxieme entretien, passim. For Lamennais, see his Oeuvres\nCompletes, Paris, 1836-'37, tome ii, pp.78-81, chap. xv of Essai sur\nl'Indifference en Matiere de Religion.\n\n\nIn Germany philological science took so strong a hold that its positions\nwere soon recognised as impregnable. Leaders like the Schlegels, Wilhelm\nvon Humboldt, and above all Franz Bopp and Jacob Grimm, gave such\nadditional force to scientific truth that it could no longer be\nwithstood. To say nothing of other conquests, the demonstration of that\ngreat law in philology which bears Grimm's name brought home to all\nthinking men the evidence that the evolution of language had not been\ndetermined by the philosophic utterances of Adam in naming the animals\nwhich Jehovah brought before him, but in obedience to natural law.\n\nTrue, a few devoted theologians showed themselves willing to lead a\nforlorn hope; and perhaps the most forlorn of all was that of 1840,\nled by Dr. Gottlieb Christian Kayser, Professor of Theology at the\nProtestant University of Erlangen. He does not, indeed, dare put in the\nold claim that Hebrew is identical with the primitive tongue, but he\ninsists that it is nearer it than any other. He relinquishes the two\nformer theological strongholds--first, the idea that language was taught\nby the Almighty to Adam, and, next, that the alphabet was thus taught to\nMoses--and falls back on the position that all tongues are thus derived\nfrom Noah, giving as an example the language of the Caribbees, and\ninsisting that it was evidently so derived. What chance similarity in\nwords between Hebrew and the Caribbee tongue he had in mind is past\nfinding out. He comes out strongly in defence of the biblical account of\nthe Tower of Babel, and insists that \"by the symbolical expression 'God\nsaid, Let us go down,' a further natural phenomenon is intimated, to\nwit, the cleaving of the earth, whereby the return of the dispersed\nbecame impossible--that is to say, through a new or not universal\nflood, a partial inundation and temporary violent separation of great\ncontinents until the time of the rediscovery\" By these words the learned\ndoctor means nothing less than the separation of Europe from America.\n\nWhile at the middle of the nineteenth century the theory of the origin\nand development of language was upon the continent considered as\nsettled, and a well-ordered science had there emerged from the old\nchaos, Great Britain still held back, in spite of the fact that the most\nimportant contributors to the science were of British origin. Leaders in\nevery English church and sect vied with each other, either in denouncing\nthe encroachments of the science of language or in explaining them away.\n\nBut a new epoch had come, and in a way least expected. Perhaps the most\nnotable effort in bringing it in was made by Dr. Wiseman, afterward\nCardinal Archbishop of Westminster. His is one of the best examples of\na method which has been used with considerable effect during the latest\nstages of nearly all the controversies between theology and science.\nIt consists in stating, with much fairness, the conclusions of the\nscientific authorities, and then in persuading one's self and trying\nto persuade others that the Church has always accepted them and accepts\nthem now as \"additional proofs of the truth of Scripture.\" A little\njuggling with words, a little amalgamation of texts, a little judicious\nsuppression, a little imaginative deduction, a little unctuous phrasing,\nand the thing is done. One great service this eminent and kindly\nCatholic champion undoubtedly rendered: by this acknowledgment, so\nwidely spread in his published lectures, he made it impossible for\nCatholics or Protestants longer to resist the main conclusions\nof science. Henceforward we only have efforts to save theological\nappearances, and these only by men whose zeal outran their discretion.\n\nOn both sides of the Atlantic, down to a recent period, we see these\nefforts, but we see no less clearly that they are mutually destructive.\nYet out of this chaos among English-speaking peoples the new science\nbegan to develop steadily and rapidly. Attempts did indeed continue\nhere and there to save the old theory. Even as late as 1859 we hear\nthe eminent Presbyterian divine, Dr. John Cumming, from his pulpit\nin London, speaking of Hebrew as \"that magnificent tongue--that\nmother-tongue, from which all others are but distant and debilitated\nprogenies.\"\n\nBut the honour of producing in the nineteenth century the most absurd\nknown attempt to prove Hebrew the primitive tongue belongs to the\nyoungest of the continents, Australia. In the year 1857 was printed at\nMelbourne The Triumph of Truth, or a Popular Lecture on the Origin of\nLanguages, by B. Atkinson, M.R.C.P.L.--whatever that may mean. In this\nwork, starting with the assertion that \"the Hebrew was the primary stock\nwhence all languages were derived,\" the author states that Sanskrit is\n\"a dialect of the Hebrew,\" and declares that \"the manuscripts found\nwith mummies agree precisely with the Chinese version of the Psalms of\nDavid.\" It all sounds like Alice in Wonderland. Curiously enough, in\nthe latter part of his book, evidently thinking that his views would not\ngive him authority among fastidious philologists, he says, \"A great deal\nof our consent to the foregoing statements arises in our belief in the\nDivine inspiration of the Mosaic account of the creation of the world\nand of our first parents in the Garden of Eden.\" A yet more\ninteresting light is thrown upon the author's view of truth, and of its\npromulgation, by his dedication: he says that, \"being persuaded that\nliterary men ought to be fostered by the hand of power,\" he dedicates\nhis treatise \"to his Excellency Sir H. Barkly,\" who was at the time\nGovernor of Victoria.\n\nStill another curious survival is seen in a work which appeared as late\nas 1885, at Edinburgh, by William Galloway, M.A., Ph.D., M.D. The author\nthinks that he has produced abundant evidence to prove that \"Jehovah,\nthe Second Person of the Godhead, wrote the first chapter of Genesis on\na stone pillar, and that this is the manner by which he first revealed\nit to Adam; and thus Adam was taught not only to speak but to read and\nwrite by Jehovah, the Divine Son; and that the first lesson he got was\nfrom the first chapter of Genesis.\" He goes on to say: \"Jehovah wrote\nthese first two documents; the first containing the history of the\nCreation, and the second the revelation of man's redemption,... for\nAdam's and Eve's instruction; it is evident that he wrote them in the\nHebrew tongue, because that was the language of Adam and Eve.\" But this\nwas only a flower out of season.\n\nAnd, finally, in these latter days Mr. Gladstone has touched the\nsubject. With that well-known facility in believing anything he wishes\nto believe, which he once showed in connecting Neptune's trident\nwith the doctrine of the Trinity, he floats airily over all the\nimpossibilities of the original Babel legend and all the conquests of\nscience, makes an assertion regarding the results of philology which no\nphilologist of any standing would admit, and then escapes in a cloud of\nrhetoric after his well-known fashion.\n\nThis, too, must be set down simply as a survival, for in the British\nIsles as elsewhere the truth has been established. Such men as Max\nMuller and Sayce in England,--Steinthal, Schleicher, Weber, Karl\nAbel, and a host of others in Germany,--Ascoli and De Gubernatis in\nItaly,--and Whitney, with the scholars inspired by him, in America,\nhave carried the new science to a complete triumph. The sons of\nYale University may well be proud of the fact that this old Puritan\nfoundation was made the headquarters of the American Oriental Society,\nwhich has done so much for the truth in this field.(420)\n\n\n     (420) For Mr. Gladstone's view, see his Impregnable Rock of Holy\nScripture, London, 1890, pp. 241 et seq. The passage connecting the\ntrident of Neptune with the Trinity is in his Juventus Mundi. To any\nAmerican boy who sees how inevitably, both among Indian and white\nfishermen, the fish spear takes the three-pronged form, this utterance\nof Mr. Gladstone is amazing.\n\n\n\n\nV. SUMMARY.\n\n\nIt may be instructive, in conclusion, to sum up briefly the history of\nthe whole struggle.\n\nFirst, as to the origin of speech, we have in the beginning the whole\nChurch rallying around the idea that the original language was Hebrew;\nthat this language, even including the medieval rabbinical punctuation,\nwas directly inspired by the Almighty; that Adam was taught it by God\nhimself in walks and talks; and that all other languages were derived\nfrom it at the \"confusion of Babel.\"\n\nNext, we see parts of this theory fading out: the inspiration of the\nrabbinical points begins to disappear. Adam, instead of being taught\ndirectly by God, is \"inspired\" by him.\n\nThen comes the third stage: advanced theologians endeavour to compromise\non the idea that Adam was \"given verbal roots and a mental power.\"\n\nFinally, in our time, we have them accepting the theory that language is\nthe result of an evolutionary process in obedience to laws more or less\nclearly ascertained. Babel thus takes its place quietly among the sacred\nmyths.\n\nAs to the origin of writing, we have the more eminent theologians\nat first insisting that God taught Adam to write; next we find them\ngradually retreating from this position, but insisting that writing was\ntaught to the world by Noah. After the retreat from this position, we\nfind them insisting that it was Moses whom God taught to write.\nBut scientific modes of thought still progressed, and we next have\ninfluential theologians agreeing that writing was a Mosaic invention;\nthis is followed by another theological retreat to the position that\nwriting was a post-Mosaic invention. Finally, all the positions are\nrelinquished, save by some few skirmishers who appear now and then\nupon the horizon, making attempts to defend some subtle method of\n\"reconciling\" the Babel myth with modern science.\n\nJust after the middle of the nineteenth century the last stage of\ntheological defence was evidently reached--the same which is seen in the\nhistory of almost every science after it has successfully fought its way\nthrough the theological period--the declaration which we have already\nseen foreshadowed by Wiseman, that the scientific discoveries in\nquestion are nothing new, but have really always been known and held by\nthe Church, and that they simply substantiate the position taken by\nthe Church. This new contention, which always betokens the last gasp of\ntheological resistance to science, was now echoed from land to land. In\n1856 it was given forth by a divine of the Anglican Church, Archdeacon\nPratt, of Calcutta. He gives a long list of eminent philologists who had\ndone most to destroy the old supernatural view of language, reads into\ntheir utterances his own wishes, and then exclaims, \"So singularly do\ntheir labours confirm the literal truth of Scripture.\"\n\nTwo years later this contention was echoed from the American\nPresbyterian Church, and Dr. B. W. Dwight, having stigmatized as\n\"infidels\" those who had not incorporated into their science the literal\nacceptance of Hebrew legend, declared that \"chronology, ethnography,\nand etymology have all been tortured in vain to make them contradict the\nMosaic account of the early history of man.\" Twelve years later this was\nre-echoed from England. The Rev. Dr. Baylee, Principal of the College of\nSt. Aidan's, declared, \"With regard to the varieties of human language,\nthe account of the confusion of tongues is receiving daily confirmation\nby all the recent discoveries in comparative philology.\" So, too, in\nthe same year (1870), in the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland,\nDr. John Eadie, Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, declared,\n\"Comparative philology has established the miracle of Babel.\"\n\nA skill in theology and casuistry so exquisite as to contrive such\nassertions, and a faith so robust as to accept them, certainly leave\nnothing to be desired. But how baseless these contentions are is shown,\nfirst, by the simple history of the attitude of the Church toward this\nquestion; and, secondly, by the fact that comparative philology now\nreveals beyond a doubt that not only is Hebrew not the original or\noldest language upon earth, but that it is not even the oldest form in\nthe Semitic group to which it belongs. To use the words of one of the\nmost eminent modern authorities, \"It is now generally recognised that\nin grammatical structure the Arabic preserves much more of the original\nforms than either the Hebrew or Aramaic.\"\n\nHistory, ethnology, and philology now combine inexorably to place the\naccount of the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of races at Babel\namong the myths; but their work has not been merely destructive: more\nand more strong are the grounds for belief in an evolution of language.\n\nA very complete acceptance of the scientific doctrines has been made\nby Archdeacon Farrar, Canon of Westminster. With a boldness which in an\nearlier period might have cost him dear, and which merits praise even\nnow for its courage, he says: \"For all reasoners except that portion of\nthe clergy who in all ages have been found among the bitterest enemies\nof scientific discovery, these considerations have been conclusive. But,\nstrange to say, here, as in so many other instances, this self-styled\northodoxy--more orthodox than the Bible itself--directly contradicts\nthe very Scriptures which it professes to explain, and by sheer\nmisrepresentation succeeds in producing a needless and deplorable\ncollision between the statements of Scripture and those other mighty and\ncertain truths which have been revealed to science and humanity as their\nglory and reward.\"\n\nStill another acknowledgment was made in America through the\ninstrumentality of a divine of the Methodist Episcopal Church, whom\nthe present generation at least will hold in honour not only for his\nscholarship but for his patriotism in the darkest hour of his country's\nneed--John McClintock. In the article on Language, in the Biblical\nCyclopaedia, edited by him and the Rev. Dr. Strong, which appeared\nin 1873, the whole sacred theory is given up, and the scientific view\naccepted.(421)\n\n\n     (421) For Kayser, see his work, Ueber die Ursprache, oder uber eine\nBehauptung Mosis, dass alle Sprachen der Welt von einer einzigen der\nNoahhischen abstammen, Erlangen, 1840; see especially pp. 5, 80, 95,\n112. For Wiseman, see his Lectures on the Connection between Science and\nRevealed Religion, London, 1836. For examples typical of very many in\nthis field, see the works of Pratt, 1856; Dwight, 1858; Jamieson, 1868.\nFor citation from Cumming, see his Great Tribulation, London, 1859, p.\n4; see also his Things Hard to be Understood, London, 1861, p. 48. For\nan admirable summary of the work of the great modern philologists, and\na most careful estimate of the conclusions reached, see Prof. Whitney's\narticle on Philology in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. A copy of Mr.\nAtkinson's book is in the Harvard College Library, it having been\npresented by the Trustees of the Public Library of Victoria. For\nGalloway, see his Philosophy of the Creation, Edinburgh and London,\n1885, pp. 21, 238, 239, 446. For citation from Baylee, see his Verbal\nInspiration the True Characteristic of God's Holy Word, London, 1870,\np. 14 and elsewhere. For Archdeacon Pratt, see his Scripture and Science\nnot at Variance, London, 1856, p. 55. For the citation from Dr. Eadie,\nsee his Biblical Cyclopaedia, London, 1870, p. 53. For Dr. Dwight,\nsee The New-Englander, vol. xvi, p. 465. For the theological article\nreferred to as giving up the sacred theory, see the Cyclopaedia of\nBiblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, prepared by Rev.\nJohn McClintock, D. D., and James Strong, New York, 1873, vol. v, p.\n233. For Arabic as an earlier Semitic development than Hebrew, as well\nas for much other valuable information on the questions recently\nraised, see article Hebrew, by W. R. Smith, in the latest edition of\nthe Encyclopaedia Britannica. For quotation from Canon Farrar, see his\nlanguage and Languages, London, 1878, pp. 6,7.\n\n\nIt may, indeed, be now fairly said that the thinking leaders of theology\nhave come to accept the conclusions of science regarding the origin of\nlanguage, as against the old explanations by myth and legend. The result\nhas been a blessing both to science and to religion. No harm has been\ndone to religion; what has been done is to release it from the clog of\ntheories which thinking men saw could no longer be maintained. No matter\nwhat has become of the naming of the animals by Adam, of the origin of\nthe name Babel, of the fear of the Almighty lest men might climb up into\nhis realm above the firmament, and of the confusion of tongues and the\ndispersion of nations; the essentials of Christianity, as taught by its\nblessed Founder, have simply been freed, by Comparative Philology, from\none more great incubus, and have therefore been left to work with more\npower upon the hearts and minds of mankind.\n\nNor has any harm been done to the Bible. On the contrary, this divine\nrevelation through science has made it all the more precious to us.\nIn these myths and legends caught from earlier civilizations we see an\nevolution of the most important religious and moral truths for our\nrace. Myth, legend, and parable seem, in obedience to a divine law, the\nnecessary setting for these truths, as they are successively evolved,\never in higher and higher forms. What matters it, then, that we have\ncome to know that the accounts of Creation, the Fall, the Deluge, and\nmuch else in our sacred books, were remembrances of lore obtained from\nthe Chaldeans? What matters it that the beautiful story of Joseph is\nfound to be in part derived from an Egyptian romance, of which the\nhieroglyphs may still be seen? What matters it that the story of David\nand Goliath is poetry; and that Samson, like so many men of strength\nin other religions, is probably a sun-myth? What matters it that the\ninculcation of high duty in the childhood of the world is embodied in\nsuch quaint stories as those of Jonah and Balaam? The more we realize\nthese facts, the richer becomes that great body of literature brought\ntogether within the covers of the Bible. What matters it that those who\nincorporated the Creation lore of Babylonia and other Oriental\nnations into the sacred books of the Hebrews, mixed it with their own\nconceptions and deductions? What matters it that Darwin changed the\nwhole aspect of our Creation myths; that Lyell and his compeers placed\nthe Hebrew story of Creation and of the Deluge of Noah among legends;\nthat Copernicus put an end to the standing still of the sun for Joshua;\nthat Halley, in promulgating his law of comets, put an end to the\ndoctrine of \"signs and wonders\"; that Pinel, in showing that all\ninsanity is physical disease, relegated to the realm of mythology the\nwitch of Endor and all stories of demoniacal possession; that the Rev.\nDr. Schaff, and a multitude of recent Christian travellers in Palestine,\nhave put into the realm of legend the story of Lot's wife transformed\ninto a pillar of salt; that the anthropologists, by showing how man\nhas risen everywhere from low and brutal beginnings, have destroyed the\nwhole theological theory of \"the fall of man\"? Our great body of sacred\nliterature is thereby only made more and more valuable to us: more and\nmore we see how long and patiently the forces in the universe which make\nfor righteousness have been acting in and upon mankind through the only\nagencies fitted for such work in the earliest ages of the world--through\nmyth, legend, parable, and poem.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.  FROM THE DEAD SEA LEGENDS TO COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY,\n\n\n\n\nI. THE GROWTH OF EXPLANATORY TRANSFORMATION MYTHS.\n\n\nA few years since, Maxime Du Camp, an eminent member of the French\nAcademy, travelling from the Red Sea to the Nile through the Desert\nof Kosseir, came to a barren slope covered with boulders, rounded and\nglossy.\n\nHis Mohammedan camel-driver accounted for them on this wise:\n\n\"Many years ago Hadji Abdul-Aziz, a sheik of the dervishes, was\ntravelling on foot through this desert: it was summer: the sun was hot\nand the dust stifling; thirst parched his lips, fatigue weighed down his\nback, sweat dropped from his forehead, when looking up he saw--on this\nvery spot--a garden beautifully green, full of fruit, and, in the midst\nof it, the gardener.\n\n\"'O fellow-man,' cried Hadji Abdul-Aziz, 'in the name of Allah, clement\nand merciful, give me a melon and I will give you my prayers.'\"\n\nThe gardener answered: 'I care not for your prayers; give me money, and\nI will give you fruit.'\n\n\"'But,' said the dervish, 'I am a beggar; I have never had money; I am\nthirsty and weary, and one of your melons is all that I need.'\n\n\"'No,' said the gardener; 'go to the Nile and quench your thirst.'\n\n\"Thereupon the dervish, lifting his eyes toward heaven, made this\nprayer: 'O Allah, thou who in the midst of the desert didst make the\nfountain of Zem-Zem spring forth to satisfy the thirst of Ismail, father\nof the faithful: wilt thou suffer one of thy creatures to perish thus of\nthirst and fatigue? '\n\n\"And it came to pass that, hardly had the dervish spoken, when an\nabundant dew descended upon him, quenching his thirst and refreshing him\neven to the marrow of his bones.\n\n\"Now at the sight of this miracle the gardener knew that the dervish was\na holy man, beloved of Allah, and straightway offered him a melon.\n\n\"'Not so,' answered Hadji Abdul-Aziz; 'keep what thou hast, thou wicked\nman. May thy melons become as hard as thy heart, and thy field as barren\nas thy soul!'\n\n\"And straightway it came to pass that the melons were changed into\nthese blocks of stone, and the grass into this sand, and never since has\nanything grown thereon.\"\n\nIn this story, and in myriads like it, we have a survival of that early\nconception of the universe in which so many of the leading moral and\nreligious truths of the great sacred books of the world are imbedded.\n\nAll ancient sacred lore abounds in such mythical explanations of\nremarkable appearances in nature, and these are most frequently prompted\nby mountains, rocks, and boulders seemingly misplaced.\n\nIn India we have such typical examples among the Brahmans as the\nmountain-peak which Durgu threw at Parvati; and among the Buddhists the\nstone which Devadatti hurled at Buddha.\n\nIn Greece the Athenian, rejoicing in his belief that Athena guarded her\nchosen people, found it hard to understand why the great rock Lycabettus\nshould be just too far from the Acropolis to be of use as an outwork;\nbut a myth was developed which explained all. According to this, Athena\nhad intended to make Lycabettus a defence for the Athenians, and she\nwas bringing it through the air from Pallene for that very purpose; but,\nunfortunately, a raven met her and informed her of the wonderful birth\nof Erichthonius, which so surprised the goddess that she dropped the\nrock where it now stands.\n\nSo, too, a peculiar rock at Aegina was accounted for by a long and\ncircumstantial legend to the effect that Peleus threw it at Phocas.\n\nA similar mode of explaining such objects is seen in the mythologies of\nnorthern Europe. In Scandinavia we constantly find rocks which tradition\naccounts for by declaring that they were hurled by the old gods at each\nother, or at the early Christian churches.\n\nIn Teutonic lands, as a rule, wherever a strange rock or stone is found,\nthere will be found a myth or a legend, heathen or Christian, to account\nfor it.\n\nSo, too, in Celtic countries: typical of this mode of thought in\nBrittany and in Ireland is the popular belief that such features in the\nlandscape were dropped by the devil or by fairies.\n\nEven at a much later period such myths have grown and bloomed. Marco\nPolo gives a long and circumstantial legend of a mountain in Asia Minor\nwhich, not long before his visit, was removed by a Christian who,\nhaving \"faith as a grain of mustard seed,\" and remembering the Saviour's\npromise, transferred the mountain to its present place by prayer, \"at\nwhich marvel many Saracens became Christians.\"(422)\n\n\n     (422) For Maxime Du Camp, see Le Nil: Egypte et Nubie, Paris, 1877,\nchapter v. For India, see Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, vol. iii,\np. 366; also Coleman, Mythology of the Hindus, p. 90. For Greece, as to\nthe Lycabettus myth, see Leake, Topography of Athens, vol. i, sec. 3;\nalso Burnouf, La Legende Athenienne, p. 152. For the rock at Aegina,\nsee Charton, vol. i, p. 310. For Scandanavia, see Thorpe, Northern\nAntiquities, passim. For Teutonic countries, see Grimm, Deutsche\nMythologie; Panzer, Beitrag zur deutschen Mythologie, vol. ii; Zingerle,\nSagen aus Tyrol, pp. 111 et seq., 488, 504, 543; and especially J. B.\nFriedrich, Symbolik und Mythologie der Natur, pp. 116 et seq. For Celtic\nexamples I am indebted to that learned and genial scholar, Prof. J.\nP. Mahaffy, of Trinity College, Dublin. See also story of the devil\ndropping a rock when forced by the archangel Michael to aid him in\nbuilding Mont Saint-Michel on the west coast of France, in Sebillot's\nTraditions de la Haute Bretagne, vol. i, p. 22; also multitudes of other\nexamples in the same work. For Marco Polo, see in Grynaeus, p. 337; also\nCharton, Voyageurs anciens et modernes, tome ii, pp. 274 et seq., where\nthe legend is given in full.\n\n\nSimilar mythical explanations are also found, in all the older religions\nof the world, for curiously marked meteoric stones, fossils, and the\nlike.\n\nTypical examples are found in the imprint of Buddha's feet on stones in\nSiam and Ceylon; in the imprint of the body of Moses, which down to the\nmiddle of the last century was shown near Mount Sinai; in the imprint\nof Poseidon's trident on the Acropolis at Athens; in the imprint of the\nhands or feet of Christ on stones in France, Italy, and Palestine; in\nthe imprint of the Virgin's tears on stones at Jerusalem; in the imprint\nof the feet of Abraham at Jerusalem and of Mohammed on a stone in the\nMosque of Khait Bey at Cairo; in the imprint of the fingers of giants on\nstones in the Scandinavian Peninsula, in north Germany, and in western\nFrance; in the imprint of the devil's thighs on a rock in Brittany,\nand of his claws on stones which he threw at churches in Cologne and\nSaint-Pol-de-Leon; in the imprint of the shoulder of the devil's grand\nmother on the \"elbow-stone\" at the Mohriner see; in the imprint of\nSt. Otho's feet on a stone formerly preserved in the castle church at\nStettin; in the imprint of the little finger of Christ and the head\nof Satan at Ehrenberg; and in the imprint of the feet of St. Agatha\nat Catania, in Sicily. To account for these appearances and myriads of\nothers, long and interesting legends were developed, and out of this\nmass we may take one or two as typical.\n\nOne of the most beautiful was evolved at Rome. On the border of the\nmedieval city stands the church of \"Domine quo vadis\"; it was erected in\nhonour of a stone, which is still preserved, bearing a mark resembling a\nhuman footprint--perhaps the bed of a fossil.\n\nOut of this a pious legend grew as naturally as a wild rose in a\nprairie. According to this story, in one of the first great persecutions\nthe heart of St. Peter failed him, and he attempted to flee from the\ncity: arriving outside the walls he was suddenly confronted by the\nMaster, whereupon Peter in amazement asked, \"Lord, whither goest thou?\"\n(Domine quo vadis?); to which the Master answered, \"To Rome, to be\ncrucified again.\" The apostle, thus rebuked, returned to martyrdom; the\nMaster vanished, but left, as a perpetual memorial, his footprint in the\nsolid rock.\n\nAnother legend accounts for a curious mark in a stone at Jerusalem.\nAccording to this, St. Thomas, after the ascension of the Lord, was\nagain troubled with doubts, whereupon the Virgin Mother threw down her\ngirdle, which left its imprint upon the rock, and thus converted the\ndoubter fully and finally.\n\nAnd still another example is seen at the very opposite extreme of\nEurope, in the legend of the priestess of Hertha in the island of Rugen.\nShe had been unfaithful to her vows, and the gods furnished a proof of\nher guilt by causing her and her child to sink into the rock on which\nshe stood.(423)\n\n\n     (423) For myths and legend crystallizing about boulders and other stones\ncuriously shaped or marked, see, on the general subject, in addition to\nworks already cited, Des Brosses, Les Dieux Fetiches, 1760, passim, but\nespecially pages 166, 167; and for a condensed statement as to worship\npaid them, see Gerard de Rialle, Mythologie comparee, vol. vi, chapter\nii. For imprints of Buddha's feet, see Tylor, Researches into the Early\nHistory of Mankind, London, 1878, pp. 115 et seq.; also Coleman, p. 203,\nand Charton, Voyageurs anciens et modernes, tome i, pp. 365, 366, where\nengravings of one of the imprints, and of the temple above another, are\nseen. There are five which are considered authentic by the Siamese,\nand a multitude of others more or less strongly insisted upon. For the\nimprint os Moses' body, see travellers from Sir John Mandeville down.\nFor the mark of Neptune's trident, see last edition of Murray's Handbook\nof Greece, vol. i, p. 322; and Burnouf, La Legende Athenienne, p. 153.\nFor imprint of the feet of Christ, and of the Virgin's girdle and tears,\nsee many of the older travellers in Palestine, as Arculf, Bouchard,\nRoger, and especially Bertrandon de la Brocquiere in Wright's\ncollection, pp. 339, 340; also Maundrell's Travels, and Mandeville. For\nthe curious legend regarding the imprint of Abraham's foot, see Weil,\nBiblische Legenden der Muselmanner, pp. 91 et seq. For many additional\nexamples in Palestine, particularly the imprints of the bodies of three\napostles on stones in the Garden of Gethsemane and of St. Jerome's body\nin the desert, see Beauvau, Relation du Voyage du Lavant, Nancy, 1615,\npassim. For the various imprints made by Satan and giants in Scandanavia\nand Germany, see Thorpe, vol. ii, p. 85; Friedrichs, pp. 126 and passim.\nFor a very rich collection of such explanatory legends regarding stones\nand marks in Germany, see Karl Bartsch, Sagen, Marchen und Gebrauche\naus Meklenburg, Wien, 1880, vol. ii, pp. 420 et seq. For a woodcut\nrepresenting the imprint of Christ's feet on the stone from which he\nascended to heaven, see woodcut in Mandeville, edition of 1484, in the\nWhite Library, Cornell University. For the legend of Domine quo vadis,\nsee many books of travel and nearly all guide books for Rome, from\nthe mediaeval Mirabilia Romae to the latest edition of Murray. The\nfootprints of Mohammed at Cairo were shown to the present writer in\n1889. On the general subject, with many striking examples, see Falsan,\nLa Periode glaciaire, Paris, 1889, pp. 17, 294, 295.\n\n\nAnother and very fruitful source of explanatory myths is found in\nancient centres of volcanic action, and especially in old craters of\nvolcanoes and fissures filled with water.\n\nIn China we have, among other examples, Lake Man, which was once the\nsite of the flourishing city Chiang Shui--overwhelmed and sunk on\naccount of the heedlessness of its inhabitants regarding a divine\nwarning.\n\nIn Phrygia, the lake and morass near Tyana were ascribed to the wrath\nof Zeus and Hermes, who, having visited the cities which formerly stood\nthere, and having been refused shelter by all the inhabitants save\nPhilemon and Baucis, rewarded their benefactors, but sunk the wicked\ncities beneath the lake and morass.\n\nStories of similar import grew up to explain the crater near Sipylos\nin Asia Minor and that of Avernus in Italy: the latter came to be\nconsidered the mouth of the infernal regions, as every schoolboy knows\nwhen he has read his Virgil.\n\nIn the later Christian mythologies we have such typical legends as those\nwhich grew up about the old crater in Ceylon; the salt water in it being\naccounted for by supposing it the tears of Adam and Eve, who retreated\nto this point after their expulsion from paradise and bewailed their sin\nduring a hundred years.\n\nSo, too, in Germany we have multitudes of lakes supposed to owe their\norigin to the sinking of valleys as a punishment for human sin. Of these\nare the \"Devil's Lake,\" near Gustrow, which rose and covered a\nchurch and its priests on account of their corruption; the lake at\nProbst-Jesar, which rose and covered an oak grove and a number of\npeasants resting in it on account of their want of charity to beggars;\nand the Lucin Lake, which rose and covered a number of soldiers on\naccount of their cruelty to a poor peasant.\n\nSuch legends are found throughout America and in Japan, and will\ndoubtless be found throughout Asia and Africa, and especially among\nthe volcanic lakes of South America, the pitch lakes of the Caribbean\nIslands, and even about the Salt Lake of Utah; for explanatory myths and\nlegends under such circumstances are inevitable.(424)\n\n\n     (424) As to myths explaining volcanic craters and lakes, and embodying\nideas of the wrath of Heaven against former inhabitants of the\nneighboring country, see Forbiger, Alte Geographie, Hamburg, 1877, vol.\ni, p. 563. For exaggerations concerning the Dead Sea, see ibid., vol. i,\np. 575. For the sinking of Chiang Shui and other examples, see Denny's\nFolklore of China, pp. 126 et seq. For the sinking of the Phrygian\nregion, the destruction of its inhabitants, and the saving of Philemon\nand Baucis, see Ovid's Metamorphoses, book viii; also Botticher,\nBaumcultus der Alten, etc. For the lake in Ceylon arising from the tears\nof Adam and Eve, see variants of the original legend in Mandeville and\nin Jurgen Andersen, Reisebeschreibung, 1669, vol. ii, p. 132. For\nthe volcanic nature of the Dead Sea, see Daubeny, cited in Smith's\nDictionary of the Bible, s.v. Palestine. For lakes in Germany owing\ntheir origin to human sin and various supernatural causes, see Karl\nBartsch, Sagen, Marche und Gebrauche aus Meklenburg, vol. i, pp. 397 et\nseq. For lakes in America, see any good collection of Indian legends.\nFor lakes in Japan sunk supernaturally, see Braun's Japanesische Marche\nund Sagen, Leipsic, 1885, pp. 350, 351.\n\n\nTo the same manner of explaining striking appearances in physical\ngeography, and especially strange rocks and boulders, we mainly owe\nthe innumerable stories of the transformation of living beings, and\nespecially of men and women, into these natural features.\n\nIn the mythology of China we constantly come upon legends of such\ntransformations--from that of the first Counsellor of the Han dynasty\nto those of shepherds and sheep. In the Brahmanic mythology of India,\nSalagrama, the fossil ammonite, is recognised as containing the body of\nVishnu's wife, and the Binlang stone has much the same relation to Siva;\nso, too, the nymph Ramba was changed, for offending Ketu, into a mass of\nsand; by the breath of Siva elephants were turned into stone; and in a\nvery touching myth Luxman is changed into stone but afterward released.\nIn the Buddhist mythology a Nat demon is represented as changing himself\ninto a grain of sand.\n\nAmong the Greeks such transformation myths come constantly before\nus--both the changing of stones to men and the changing of men to\nstones. Deucalion and Pyrrha, escaping from the flood, repeopled the\nearth by casting behind them stones which became men and women; Heraulos\nwas changed into stone for offending Mercury; Pyrrhus for offending\nRhea; Phineus, and Polydectes with his guests, for offending Perseus:\nunder the petrifying glance of Medusa's head such transformations became\na thing of course.\n\nTo myth-making in obedience to the desire of explaining unusual\nnatural appearances, coupled with the idea that sin must be followed by\nretribution, we also owe the well-known Niobe myth. Having incurred the\ndivine wrath, Niobe saw those dearest to her destroyed by missiles from\nheaven, and was finally transformed into a rock on Mount Sipylos which\nbore some vague resemblance to the human form, and her tears became the\nrivulets which trickled from the neighbouring strata.\n\nThus, in obedience to a moral and intellectual impulse, a striking\ngeographical appearance was explained, and for ages pious Greeks looked\nwith bated breath upon the rock at Sipylos which was once Niobe, just\nas for ages pious Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans looked with awe upon\nthe salt pillar at the Dead Sea which was once Lot's wife.\n\nPausanias, one of the most honest of ancient travellers, gives us a\nnotable exhibition of this feeling. Having visited this monument of\ndivine vengeance at Mount Sipylos, he tells us very naively that, though\nhe could discern no human features when standing near it, he thought\nthat he could see them when standing at a distance. There could\nhardly be a better example of that most common and deceptive of all\nthings--belief created by the desire to believe.\n\nIn the pagan mythology of Scandinavia we have such typical examples as\nBors slaying the giant Ymir and transforming his bones into boulders;\nalso \"the giant who had no heart\" transforming six brothers and their\nwives into stone; and, in the old Christian mythology, St. Olaf changing\ninto stone the wicked giants who opposed his preaching.\n\nSo, too, in Celtic countries we have in Ireland such legends as those of\nthe dancers turned into stone; and, in Brittany, the stones at Plesse,\nwhich were once hunters and dogs violating the sanctity of Sunday; and\nthe stones of Carnac, which were once soldiers who sought to kill St.\nCornely.\n\nTeutonic mythology inherited from its earlier Eastern days a similar\nmass of old legends, and developed a still greater mass of new ones.\nThus, near the Konigstein, which all visitors to the Saxon Switzerland\nknow so well, is a boulder which for ages was believed to have once been\na maiden transformed into stone for refusing to go to church; and near\nRosenberg in Mecklenburg is another curiously shaped stone of which\na similar story is told. Near Spornitz, in the same region, are seven\nboulders whose forms and position are accounted for by a long and\ncircumstantial legend that they were once seven impious herdsmen; near\nBrahlsdorf is a stone which, according to a similar explanatory myth,\nwas once a blasphemous shepherd; near Schwerin are three boulders which\nwere once wasteful servants; and at Neustadt, down to a recent period,\nwas shown a collection of stones which were once a bride and bridegroom\nwith their horses--all punished for an act of cruelty; and these stories\nare but typical of thousands.\n\nAt the other extremity of Europe we may take, out of the multitude\nof explanatory myths, that which grew about the well-known group of\nboulders near Belgrade. In the midst of them stands one larger than the\nrest: according to the legend which was developed to account for all\nthese, there once lived there a swineherd, who was disrespectful to the\nconsecrated Host; whereupon he was changed into the larger stone, and\nhis swine into the smaller ones. So also at Saloniki we have the pillars\nof the ruined temple, which are widely believed, especially among the\nJews of that region, to have once been human beings, and are therefore\nknown as the \"enchanted columns.\"\n\nAmong the Arabs we have an addition to our sacred account of Adam--the\nlegend of the black stone of the Caaba at Mecca, into which the angel\nwas changed who was charged by the Almighty to keep Adam away from the\nforbidden fruit, and who neglected his duty.\n\nSimilar old transformation legends are abundant among the Indians of\nAmerica, the negroes of Africa, and the natives of Australia and the\nPacific islands.\n\nNor has this making of myths to account for remarkable appearances yet\nceased, even in civilized countries.\n\nAbout the beginning of this century the Grand Duke of Weimar, smitten\nwith the classical mania of his time, placed in the public park near\nhis palace a little altar, and upon this was carved, after the manner\nso frequent in classical antiquity, a serpent taking a cake from it.\nAnd shortly there appeared, in the town and the country round about, a\nlegend to explain this altar and its decoration. It was commonly said\nthat a huge serpent had laid waste that region in the olden time, until\na wise and benevolent baker had rid the world of the monster by means of\na poisoned biscuit.\n\nSo, too, but a few years since, in the heart of the State of New York,\na swindler of genius having made and buried a \"petrified giant,\" one\ntheologian explained it by declaring it a Phoenician idol, and published\nthe Phoenician inscription which he thought he had found upon it; others\nsaw in it proofs that \"there were giants in those days,\" and within a\nweek after its discovery myths were afloat that the neighbouring remnant\nof the Onondaga Indians had traditions of giants who frequently roamed\nthrough that region.(425)\n\n\n     (425) For transformation myths and legends, identifying rocks and stones\nwith gods and heroes, see Welcker, Gotterlehre, vol. i, p. 220. For\nrecent and more accessible statements for the general reader, see\nRobertson Smith's admirable Lectures on the Religion of the Semites,\nEdinburgh, 1889, pp. 86 et seq. For some thoughtful remarks on the\nancient adoration of stones rather than statues, with refernce to\nthe anointing of stones at Bethel by Jacob, see Dodwell, Tour through\nGreece, vol. ii, p. 172; also Robertson Smith, as above, Lecture V. For\nChinese transformation legends, see Denny's Folklore of China, pp. 96,\n128. For Hindu and other ancient legends of transformations, see\nDawson, Dictionary of Hindu Mythology; also Coleman, as above; also Cox,\nMythology of the Aryan Nations, pp. 81-97, etc. For such transformations\nin Greece, see the Iliad, and Ovid, as above; also Stark, Niobe und die\nNiobiden, p. 444 and elsewhere; also Preller, Griechische Mythologie,\npassim; also Baumeister, Denkmaler des classischen Alterthums, article\nNiobe; also Botticher, as above; also Curtius, Griechische Geschichte,\nvol i, pp. 71, 72. For Pausanius's naive confession regarding the\nSipylos rock, see book i, p. 215. See also Texier, Asie Mineure, pp. 265\net seq.; also Chandler, Travels in Greece, vol. ii, p. 80, who seems to\nhold to the later origin of the statue. At the end of Baumeister there\nis an engraving copied from Stuart which seems to show that, as to the\nNiobe legend, at a later period, Art was allowed to help Nature. For the\ngeneral subject, see Scheiffle, Programm des K. Gymnasiums in\nEllwangen: Mythologische Parallelen, 1865. For Scandinavian and Teutonic\ntransformation legends, see Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, vierte Ausg.,\nvol. i, p. 457; also Thorpe, Northern Antiquities; also Friedrich,\npassim, especially p. 116 et seq.; also, for a mass of very curious\nones, Karl Bartsch, Sagen, Marchen und gebrauche aus Meklenburg, vol. i,\npp. 420 et seq.; also Karl Simrock's edition of the Edda, ninth edition,\np. 319; also John Fiske, Myths and Myth-makers, pp. 8, 9. On the\nuniversality of such legends and myths, see Ritter's Erdkunde, vol. xiv,\npp. 1098-1122. For Irish examples, see Manz, Real-Encyclopadie, article\nStein; and for multitudes of examples in Brittany, see Sebillot,\nTraditions de la Haute-Bretagne. For the enchanted columns at Saloniki,\nsee the latest edition of Murray's Handbook of Turkey, vol. ii, p. 711.\nFor the legend of the angel changed into stone for neglecting to guard\nAdam, see Weil, university librarian at Heidelberg, Biblische Legende\nder Muselmanner, Frankfort-am-Main, 1845, pp. 37, 84. For similar\ntransformation legends in Australia and among the American Indians, see\nAndrew Lang, Mythology, French translation, pp. 83, 102; also his Myth,\nRitual, and Religion, vol. i, pp. 150 et seq., citing numerous examples\nfrom J. G. Muller, Urreligionen, and Dorman's Primitive Superstitions;\nalso Report of the Bureau of Ethnoligy for 1880-'81; and for an African\nexample, see account of the rock at Balon which was once a woman, in\nBerenger-Feraud, Contes populaires de la Senegambie, chap. viii. For the\nWeimar legend, see Lewes, Life of Goethe, book iv. For the myths which\narose about the swindling \"Cardiff giant\" in the State of New York, see\nespecially an article by G. A. Stockwell, M. D., in The Popular Science\nMonthly for June, 1878; see also W. A. McKinney in The New-Englander\nfor October, 1875; and for the \"Phoenician inscription,\" given at length\nwith a translation, see the Rev. Alexander McWhorter, in The Galaxy for\nJuly, 1872. The present writer visited the \"giant\" shortly after it\nwas \"discovered,\" carefully observed it, and the myths to which it gave\nrise, has in his possession a mass of curious documents regarding this\nfraud, and hopes ere long to prepare a supplement to Dr. Stockwell's\nvaluable paper.\n\n\nTo the same stage of thought belongs the conception of human beings\nchanged into trees. But, in the historic evolution of religion\nand morality, while changes into stone or rock were considered as\npunishments, or evidences of divine wrath, those into trees and shrubs\nwere frequently looked upon as rewards, or evidences of divine favour.\n\nA very beautiful and touching form of this conception is seen in such\nmyths as the change of Philemon into the oak, and of Baucis into the\nlinden; of Myrrha into the myrtle; of Melos into the apple tree; of\nAttis into the pine; of Adonis into the rose tree; and in the springing\nof the vine and grape from the blood of the Titans, the violet from the\nblood of Attis, and the hyacinth from the blood of Hyacinthus.\n\nThus it was, during the long ages when mankind saw everywhere miracle\nand nowhere law, that, in the evolution of religion and morality,\nstriking features in physical geography became connected with the idea\nof divine retribution.(426)\n\n\n\n     (426) For the view taken in Greece and Rome of transformations into\ntrees and shrubs, see Botticher, Baumcultus der Hellenen, book i, chap.\nxix; also Ovid, Metamorphoses, passim; also foregoing notes.\n\n\nBut, in the natural course of intellectual growth, thinking men began to\ndoubt the historical accuracy of these myths and legends--or, at least,\nto doubt all save those of the theology in which they happened to be\nborn; and the next step was taken when they began to make comparisons\nbetween the myths and legends of different neighbourhoods and countries:\nso came into being the science of comparative mythology--a science sure\nto be of vast value, because, despite many stumblings and vagaries,\nit shows ever more and more how our religion and morality have been\ngradually evolved, and gives a firm basis to a faith that higher planes\nmay yet be reached.\n\nSuch a science makes the sacred books of the world more and more\nprecious, in that it shows how they have been the necessary envelopes of\nour highest spiritual sustenance; how even myths and legends apparently\nthe most puerile have been the natural husks and rinds and shells of our\nbest ideas; and how the atmosphere is created in which these husks and\nrinds and shells in due time wither, shrivel, and fall away, so that the\nfruit itself may be gathered to sustain a nobler religion and a purer\nmorality.\n\nThe coming in of Christianity contributed elements of inestimable value\nin this evolution, and, at the centre of all, the thoughts, words, and\nlife of the Master. But when, in the darkness that followed the\ndownfall of the Roman Empire, there was developed a theology and a vast\necclesiastical power to enforce it, the most interesting chapters in\nthis evolution of religion and morality were removed from the domain of\nscience.\n\nSo it came that for over eighteen hundred years it has been thought\nnatural and right to study and compare the myths and legends arising\neast and west and south and north of Palestine with each other, but\nnever with those of Palestine itself; so it came that one of the regions\nmost fruitful in materials for reverent thought and healthful comparison\nwas held exempt from the unbiased search for truth; so it came that, in\nthe name of truth, truth was crippled for ages. While observation, and\nthought upon observation, and the organized knowledge or science which\nresults from these, progressed as regarded the myths and legends of\nother countries, and an atmosphere was thus produced giving purer\nconceptions of the world and its government, myths of that little\ngeographical region at the eastern end of the Mediterranean retained\npossession of the civilized world in their original crude form, and have\nat times done much to thwart the noblest efforts of religion, morality,\nand civilization.\n\n\n\n\nII. MEDIAEVAL GROWTH OF THE DEAD SEA LEGENDS.\n\n\nThe history of myths, of their growth under the earlier phases of human\nthought and of their decline under modern thinking, is one of the most\ninteresting and suggestive of human studies; but, since to treat it as\na whole would require volumes, I shall select only one small group, and\nout of this mainly a single myth--one about which there can no longer be\nany dispute--the group of myths and legends which grew upon the shore of\nthe Dead Sea, and especially that one which grew up to account for the\nsuccessive salt columns washed out by the rains at its southwestern\nextremity.\n\nThe Dead Sea is about fifty miles in length and ten miles in width; it\nlies in a very deep fissure extending north and south, and its surface\nis about thirteen hundred feet below that of the Mediterranean. It has,\ntherefore, no outlet, and is the receptacle for the waters of the whole\nsystem to which it belongs, including those collected by the Sea of\nGalilee and brought down thence by the river Jordan.\n\nIt certainly--or at least the larger part of it--ranks geologically\namong the oldest lakes on earth. In a broad sense the region is\nvolcanic: On its shore are evidences of volcanic action, which must from\nthe earliest period have aroused wonder and fear, and stimulated the\nmyth-making tendency to account for them. On the eastern side are\nimpressive mountain masses which have been thrown up from old volcanic\nvents; mineral and hot springs abound, some of them spreading sulphurous\nodours; earthquakes have been frequent, and from time to time these have\ncast up masses of bitumen; concretions of sulphur and large formations\nof salt constantly appear.\n\nThe water which comes from the springs or oozes through the salt layers\nupon its shores constantly brings in various salts in solution, and,\nbeing rapidly evaporated under the hot sun and dry wind, there has been\nleft, in the bed of the lake, a strong brine heavily charged with the\nusual chlorides and bromides--a sort of bitter \"mother liquor\" This\nfluid has become so dense as to have a remarkable power of supporting\nthe human body; it is of an acrid and nauseating bitterness; and by\nordinary eyes no evidence of life is seen in it.\n\nThus it was that in the lake itself, and in its surrounding shores,\nthere was enough to make the generation of explanatory myths on a large\nscale inevitable.\n\nThe main northern part of the lake is very deep, the plummet having\nshown an abyss of thirteen hundred feet; but the southern end is shallow\nand in places marshy.\n\nThe system of which it forms a part shows a likeness to that in South\nAmerica of which the mountain lake Titicaca is the main feature; as a\nreceptacle for surplus waters, only rendering them by evaporation, it\nresembles the Caspian and many other seas; as a sort of evaporating dish\nfor the leachings of salt rock, and consequently holding a body of water\nunfit to support the higher forms of animal life, it resembles,\namong others, the Median lake of Urumiah; as a deposit of bitumen, it\nresembles the pitch lakes of Trinidad.(427)\n\n\n     (427) For modern views of the Dead Sea, see the Rev. Edward Robinson, D.\nD., Biblical Researches, various editions; Lynch's Exploring Expedition;\nDe Saulcy, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte; Stanley's Palestine and Syria;\nSchaff's Through Bible Lands; and other travellers hereafter quoted. For\ngood photogravures, showing the character of the whole region, see the\natlas forming part of De Luynes's monumental Voyage d'Exploration. For\ngeographical summaries, see Reclus, La Terre, Paris, 1870, pp. 832-834;\nRitter, Erdkunde, volumes devoted to Palestine and especially as\nsupplemented in Gage's translation with additions; Reclus, Nouvelle\nGeographie Universelle, vol. ix, p. 736, where a small map is given\npresenting the difference in depth between the two ends of the lake,\nof which so much was made theologically before Lartet. For still better\nmaps, see De Saulcy, and especially De Luynes, Voyage d'Exploration\n(atlas). For very interesting panoramic views, see last edition of Canon\nTristram's Land of Israel, p. 635. For the geology, see Lartet, in his\nreports to the French Geographical Society, and especially in vol. iii\nof De Luynes's work, where there is an admirable geological map with\nsections, etc.; also Ritter; also Sir J. W. Dawson's Egypt and Syria,\npublished by the Religious Tract Society; also Rev. Cunningham Geikie,\nD. D., Geology of Palestine; and for pictures showing salt formation,\nTristram, as above. For the meteorology, see Vignes, report to De\nLuynes, pp. 65 et seq. For chemistry of the Dead Sea, see as above,\nand Terreil's report, given in Gage's Ritter, vol. iii, appendix 2, and\ntables in De Luynes's third volume. For zoology of the Dead Sea, as to\nentire absence of life in it, see all earlier travellers; as to presence\nof lower forms of life, see Ehrenberg's microscopic examinations in\nGage's Ritter. See also reports in third volume of De Luynes. For botany\nof the Dead Sea, and especially regarding \"apples of Sodom,\" see Dr.\nLortet's La Syrie, p. 412; also Reclus, Nouvelle Geographie, vol. ix,\np. 737; also for photographic representations of them, see portfolio\nforming part of De Luynes's work, plate 27. For Strabo's very perfect\ndescription, see his Geog., lib. xvi, cap. ii; also Fallmerayer, Werke,\npp. 177, 178. For names and positions of a large number of salt lakes in\nvarious parts of the world more or less resembling the Dead Sea, see De\nLuynes, vol. iii, pp. 242 et seq. For Trinidad \"pitch lakes,\" found by\nSir Walter Raleigh in 1595, see Lengegg, El Dorado, part i, p. 103, and\npart ii, p. 101; also Reclus, Ritter, et al. For the general subject,\nsee Schenkel, Bibel-Lexikon, s.v. Todtes Meer, an excellent summery.\nThe description of the Dead Sea in Lenormant's great history is utterly\nunworthy of him, and must have been thrown together from old notes after\nhis death. It is amazing to see in such a work the old superstitions\nthat birds attempting to fly over the sea are suffocated. See Lenormant,\nHistoire ancienne de l'Orient, edition of 1888, vol. vi, p. 112. For the\nabsorption and adoption of foreign myths and legends by the Jews, see\nBaring-Gould, Curious Myths of the Middle Ages, p. 390. For the views of\nGreeks and Romans, see especially Tacitus, Historiae, book v, Pliny, and\nStrabo, in whose remarks are the germs of many of the mediaeval myths.\nFor very curious examples of these, see Baierus, De Excidio Sodomae,\nHalle, 1690, passim.\n\n\nIn all this there is nothing presenting any special difficulty to the\nmodern geologist or geographer; but with the early dweller in Palestine\nthe case was very different. The rocky, barren desolation of the Dead\nSea region impressed him deeply; he naturally reasoned upon it; and this\nimpression and reasoning we find stamped into the pages of his sacred\nliterature, rendering them all the more precious as a revelation of the\nearlier thought of mankind. The long circumstantial account given in\nGenesis, its application in Deuteronomy, its use by Amos, by Isaiah,\nby Jeremiah, by Zephaniah, and by Ezekiel, the references to it in\nthe writings attributed to St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, in the\nApocalypse, and, above all, in more than one utterance of the Master\nhimself--all show how deeply these geographical features impressed the\nJewish mind.\n\nAt a very early period, myths and legends, many and circumstantial, grew\nup to explain features then so incomprehensible.\n\nAs the myth and legend grew up among the Greeks of a refusal of\nhospitality to Zeus and Hermes by the village in Phrygia, and the\nconsequent sinking of that beautiful region with its inhabitants beneath\na lake and morass, so there came belief in a similar offence by the\npeople of the beautiful valley of Siddim, and the consequent sinking\nof that valley with its inhabitants beneath the waters of the Dead Sea.\nVery similar to the accounts of the saving of Philemon and Baucis are\nthose of the saving of Lot and his family.\n\nBut the myth-making and miracle-mongering by no means ceased in ancient\ntimes; they continued to grow through the medieval and modern period\nuntil they have quietly withered away in the light of modern scientific\ninvestigation, leaving to us the religious and moral truths they\ninclose.\n\nIt would be interesting to trace this whole group of myths: their\norigin in times prehistoric, their development in Greece and Rome, their\nculmination during the ages of faith, and their disappearance in the age\nof science. It would be especially instructive to note the conscientious\nefforts to prolong their life by making futile compromises between\nscience and theology regarding them; but I shall mention this main group\nonly incidentally, confining my self almost entirely to the one above\nnamed--the most remarkable of all--the myth which grew about the salt\npillars of Usdum.\n\nI select this mainly because it involves only elementary principles,\nrequires no abstruse reasoning, and because all controversy regarding it\nis ended. There is certainly now no theologian with a reputation to lose\nwho will venture to revive the idea regarding it which was sanctioned\nfor hundreds, nay, thousands, of years by theology, was based on\nScripture, and was held by the universal Church until our own century.\n\nThe main feature of the salt region of Usdum is a low range of hills\nnear the southwest corner of the Dead Sea, extending in a southeasterly\ndirection for about five miles, and made up mainly of salt rock. This\nrock is soft and friable, and, under the influence of the heavy winter\nrains, it has been, without doubt, from a period long before human\nhistory, as it is now, cut ever into new shapes, and especially into\npillars or columns, which sometimes bear a resemblance to the human\nform.\n\nAn eminent clergyman who visited this spot recently speaks of the\nappearance of this salt range as follows:\n\n\"Fretted by fitful showers and storms, its ridge is exceedingly uneven,\nits sides carved out and constantly changing;... and each traveller\nmight have a new pillar of salt to wonder over at intervals of a few\nyears.\"(428)\n\n\n     (428) As to the substance of the \"pillars\" or \"statues\" or \"needles\" of\nsalt at Usdum, many travellers speak of it as \"marl and salt.\" Irby and\nMangles, in their Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Syria, and the Holy Land,\nchap. vii, call it \"salt and hardened sand.\" The citation as to frequent\ncarving out of new \"pillars\" is from the Travels in Palestine of the\nRev. H. F. Osborn, D. D.; see also Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, vol ii,\npp. 478, 479. For engravings of the salt pillar at different times,\ncompare that given by Lynch in 1848, when it appeared as a column forty\nfeet high, with that given by Palmer as the frontpiece to his Desert of\nthe Exodus, Cambridge, England, 1871, when it was small and \"does\nreally bear a curious resemblance to an Arab woman with a child upon\nhe shoulders\", and this again with the picture of the salt formation at\nUsdum given by Canon Tristram, at whose visit there was neither \"pillar\"\nnor \"statue.\" See The Land of Israel, by H. B. Tristram, D. D., F. R.\nS., London, 1882, p. 324. For similar pillars of salt washed out from\nthe mud at Catalonia, see Lyell.\n\n\nFew things could be more certain than that, in the indolent dream-life\nof the East, myths and legends would grow up to account for this as\nfor other strange appearances in all that region. The question which\na religious Oriental put to himself in ancient times at Usdum was\nsubstantially that which his descendant to-day puts to himself at\nKosseir. \"Why is this region thus blasted?\" \"Whence these pillars of\nsalt?\" or \"Whence these blocks of granite?\" \"What aroused the vengeance\nof Jehovah or of Allah to work these miracles of desolation?\"\n\nAnd, just as Maxime Du Camp recorded the answer of the modern Shemite at\nKosseir, so the compilers of the Jewish sacred books recorded the answer\nof the ancient Shemite at the Dead Sea; just as Allah at Kosseir blasted\nthe land and transformed the melons into boulders which are seen to this\nday, so Jehovah at Usdum blasted the land and transformed Lot's wife\ninto a pillar of salt, which is seen to this day.\n\nNo more difficulty was encountered in the formation of the Lot legend,\nto account for that rock resembling the human form, than in the\nformation of the Niobe legend, which accounted for a supposed\nresemblance in the rock at Sipylos: it grew up just as we have seen\nthousands of similar myths and legends grow up about striking natural\nappearances in every early home of the human race. Being thus consonant\nwith the universal view regarding the relation of physical geography to\nthe divine government, it became a treasure of the Jewish nation and\nof the Christian Church--a treasure not only to be guarded against\nall hostile intrusion, but to be increased, as we shall see, by the\nmyth-making powers of Jews, Christians, and Mohammedans for thousands\nof years. The spot where the myth originated was carefully kept in mind;\nindeed, it could not escape, for in that place alone were constantly\nseen the phenomena which gave rise to it. We have a steady chain of\ntestimony through the ages, all pointing to the salt pillar as the\nirrefragable evidence of divine judgment. That great theological test of\ntruth, the dictum of St. Vincent of Lerins, would certainly prove\nthat the pillar was Lot's wife, for it was believed so to be by Jews,\nChristians, and Mohammedans from the earliest period down to a time\nalmost within present memory--\"always, everywhere, and by all.\" It would\nstand perfectly the ancient test insisted upon by Cardinal Newman,\"\nSecurus judicat orbis terrarum.\"\n\nFor, ever since the earliest days of Christianity, the identity of the\nsalt pillar with Lot's wife has been universally held and supported by\npassages in Genesis, in St. Luke's Gospel, and in the Second Epistle of\nSt. Peter--coupled with a passage in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon,\nwhich to this day, by a majority in the Christian Church, is believed to\nbe inspired, and from which are specially cited the words, \"A standing\npillar of salt is a monument of an unbelieving soul.\"(429)\n\n\n     (429) For the usual biblical citations, see Genesis xix, 26; St. Luke\nxvii, 32; II Peter ii, 6. For the citation from Wisdom, see chap. x,\nv. 7. For the account of the transformation of Lot's wife put into\nits proper relations with the Jehovistic and Elohistic documents, see\nLenormant's La Genese, Paris, 1883, pp. 53, 199, and 317, 318.\n\n\nNever was chain of belief more continuous. In the first century of the\nChristian era Josephus refers to the miracle, and declares regarding\nthe statue, \"I have seen it, and it remains at this day\"; and Clement,\nBishop of Rome, one of the most revered fathers of the Church, noted\nfor the moderation of his statements, expresses a similar certainty,\ndeclaring the miraculous statue to be still standing.\n\nIn the second century that great father of the Church, bishop and\nmartyr, Irenaeus, not only vouched for it, but gave his approval to the\nbelief that the soul of Lot's wife still lingered in the statue, giving\nit a sort of organic life: thus virtually began in the Church that\namazing development of the legend which we shall see taking various\nforms through the Middle Ages--the story that the salt statue exercised\ncertain physical functions which in these more delicate days can not be\nalluded to save under cover of a dead language.\n\nThis addition to the legend, which in these signs of life, as in other\nthings, is developed almost exactly on the same lines with the legend\nof the Niobe statue in the rock of Mount Sipylos and with the legends of\nhuman beings transformed into boulders in various mythologies, was for\ncenturies regarded as an additional confirmation of revealed truth.\n\nIn the third century the myth burst into still richer bloom in a\npoem long ascribed to Tertullian. In this poem more miraculous\ncharacteristics of the statue are revealed. It could not be washed away\nby rains; it could not be overthrown by winds; any wound made upon it\nwas miraculously healed; and the earlier statements as to its physical\nfunctions were amplified in sonorous Latin verse.\n\nWith this appeared a new legend regarding the Dead Sea; it became\nuniversally believed, and we find it repeated throughout the whole\nmedieval period, that the bitumen could only he dissolved by such fluids\nas in the processes of animated nature came from the statue.\n\nThe legend thus amplified we shall find dwelt upon by pious travellers\nand monkish chroniclers for hundreds of years: so it came to be more\nand more treasured by the universal Church, and held more and more\nfirmly--\"always, everywhere, and by all.\"\n\nIn the two following centuries we have an overwhelming mass of\nadditional authority for the belief that the very statue of salt into\nwhich Lot's wife was transformed was still existing. In the fourth, the\ncontinuance of the statue was vouched for by St. Silvia, who visited the\nplace: though she could not see it, she was told by the Bishop of Segor\nthat it had been there some time before, and she concluded that it\nhad been temporarily covered by the sea. In both the fourth and fifth\ncenturies such great doctors in the Church as St. Jerome, St. John\nChrysostom, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem agreed in this belief and\nstatement; hence it was, doubtless, that the Hebrew word which is\ntranslated in the authorized English version \"pillar,\" was translated\nin the Vulgate, which the majority of Christians believe virtually\ninspired, by the word \"statue\"; we shall find this fact insisted upon by\ntheologians arguing in behalf of the statue, as a result and monument of\nthe miracle, for over fourteen hundred years afterward.(430)\n\n\n     (430) See Josephus, Antiquities, book i, chap. xi; Epist. I; Cyril\nHieros, Catech., xix; Chrysostom, Hom. XVIII, XLIV, in Genes.; Irenaeus,\nlib. iv, c. xxxi, of his Heresies, edition Oxon., 1702. For St. Silvia,\nsee S. Silviae Aquitanae Peregrinatio ad Loca Sancta, Romae, 1887, p.\n55; also edition of 1885, p. 25. For recent translation, see Pilgrimage\nof St. Silvia, p. 28, in publications of Palestine Text Society for\n1891. For legends of signs of continued life in boulders and stones\ninto which human beings have been transformed for sin, see Karl Bartsch,\nSage, etc., vol. ii, pp. 420 et seq.\n\n\nAbout the middle of the sixth century Antoninus Martyr visited the Dead\nSea region and described it, but curiously reversed a simple truth in\nthese words: \"Nor do sticks or straws float there, nor can a man swim,\nbut whatever is cast into it sinks to the bottom.\" As to the statue of\nLot's wife, he threw doubt upon its miraculous renewal, but testified\nthat it was still standing.\n\nIn the seventh century the Targum of Jerusalem not only testified that\nthe salt pillar at Usdum was once Lot's wife, but declared that she must\nretain that form until the general resurrection. In the seventh century\ntoo, Bishop Arculf travelled to the Dead Sea, and his work was added\nto the treasures of the Church. He greatly develops the legend, and\nespecially that part of it given by Josephus. The bitumen that floats\nupon the sea \"resembles gold and the form of a bull or camel\"; \"birds\ncan not live near it\"; and \"the very beautiful apples\" which grow there,\nwhen plucked, \"burn and are reduced to ashes, and smoke as if they were\nstill burning.\"\n\nIn the eighth century the Venerable Bede takes these statements of\nArculf and his predecessors, binds them together in his work on The\nHoly Places, and gives the whole mass of myths and legends an enormous\nimpulse.(431)\n\n\n     (431) For Antoninus Martyr, see Tobler's edition of his work in the\nItinera, vol. i, p. 100, Geneva, 1877. For the Targum of Jerusalem, see\ncitation in Quaresmius, Terrae Sanctae Elucidation, Peregrinatio vi,\ncap. xiv; new Venice edition. For Arculf, see Tobler. For Bede, see his\nDe Locis Sanctis in Tobler's Itinera, vol. i, p. 228. For an admirable\nstatement of the mediaeval theological view of scientific research,\nsee Eicken, Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung, Stuttgart,\n1887, chap. vi.\n\n\nIn the tenth century new force is given to it by the pious Moslem\nMukadassi. Speaking of the town of Segor, near the salt region, he says\nthat the proper translation of its name is \"Hell\"; and of the lake\nhe says, \"Its waters are hot, even as though the place stood over\nhell-fire.\"\n\nIn the crusading period, immediately following, all the legends burst\nforth more brilliantly than ever.\n\nThe first of these new travellers who makes careful statements is Fulk\nof Chartres, who in 1100 accompanied King Baldwin to the Dead Sea and\nsaw many wonders; but, though he visited the salt region at Usdum, he\nmakes no mention of the salt pillar: evidently he had fallen on evil\ntimes; the older statues had probably been washed away, and no new one\nhad happened to be washed out of the rocks just at that period.\n\nBut his misfortune was more than made up by the triumphant experience\nof a far more famous traveller, half a century later--Rabbi Benjamin of\nTudela.\n\nRabbi Benjamin finds new evidences of miracle in the Dead Sea, and\ndevelops to a still higher point the legend of the salt statue of Lot's\nwife, enriching the world with the statement that it was steadily and\nmiraculously rene wed; that, though the cattle of the region licked its\nsurface, it never grew smaller. Again a thrill of joy went through the\nmonasteries and pulpits of Christendom at this increasing \"evidence of\nthe truth of Scripture.\"\n\nToward the end of the thirteenth century there appeared in Palestine\na traveller superior to most before or since--Count Burchard, monk of\nMount Sion. He had the advantage of knowing something of Arabic, and his\nwritings show him to have been observant and thoughtful. No statue of\nLot's wife appears to have been washed clean of the salt rock at his\nvisit, but he takes it for granted that the Dead Sea is \"the mouth of\nhell,\" and that the vapour rising from it is the smoke from Satan's\nfurnaces.\n\nThese ideas seem to have become part of the common stock, for Ernoul,\nwho travelled to the Dead Sea during the same century, always speaks of\nit as the \"Sea of Devils.\"\n\nNear the beginning of the fourteenth century appeared the book of far\nwider influence which bears the name of Sir John Mandeville, and in\nthe various editions of it myths and legends of the Dead Sea and of the\npillar of salt burst forth into wonderful luxuriance.\n\nThis book tells us that masses of fiery matter are every day thrown up\nfrom the water \"as large as a horse\"; that, though it contains no living\nthing, it has been shown that men thrown into it can not die; and,\nfinally, as if to prove the worthlessness of devout testimony to the\nmiraculous, he says: \"And whoever throws a piece of iron therein, it\nfloats; and whoever throws a feather therein, it sinks to the bottom;\nand, because that is contrary to nature, I was not willing to believe it\nuntil I saw it.\"\n\nThe book, of course, mentions Lot's wife, and says that the pillar of\nsalt \"stands there to-day,\" and \"has a right salty taste.\"\n\nInjustice has perhaps been done to the compilers of this famous work\nin holding them liars of the first magnitude. They simply abhorred\nscepticism, and thought it meritorious to believe all pious legends.\nThe ideal Mandeville was a man of overmastering faith, and resembled\nTertullian in believing some things \"because they are impossible\"; he\nwas doubtless entirely conscientious; the solemn ending of the\nbook shows that he listened, observed, and wrote under the deepest\nconviction, and those who re-edited his book were probably just as\nhonest in adding the later stories of pious travellers.\n\nThe Travels of Sir John Mandeville, thus appealing to the popular heart,\nwere most widely read in the monasteries and repeated among the people.\nInnumerable copies were made in manuscript, and finally in print, and so\nthe old myths received a new life.(432)\n\n\n     (432) For Fulk of Chartres and crusading travellers generally, see\nBongars' Gesta Dei and the French Recueil; also Histories of the\nCrusades by Wilken, Sybel, Kugler, and others; see also Robinson,\nBiblical Researches, vol. ii, p. 109, and Tobler, Bibliographia\nGeographica Palestinae, 1867, p. 12. For Benjamin of Tudela's statement,\nsee Wright's Collection of Travels in Palestine, p. 84, and Asher's\nedition of Benjamin of Tudela's travels, vol. i, pp. 71, 72; also\nCharton, vol. i, p. 180. For Borchard or Burchard, see full text in the\nReyssbuch dess Heyligen Landes; also Grynaeus, Nov. Orbis, Basil, 1532,\nfol. 298, 329. For Ernoul, see his L'Estat de la Cite de Hierusalem, in\nMichelant and Reynaud, Itineraires Francaises au 12me et 13me Siecles.\nFor Petrus Diaconus, see his book De Locis Sanctis, edited by Gamurrini,\nRome, 1887, pp. 126, 127. For Mandeville I have compared several\neditions, especially those in the Reyssbuch, in Canisius, and in Wright,\nwith Halliwell's reprint and with the rare Strasburg edition of 1484\nin the Cornell University Library: the whole statement regarding the\nexperiment with iron and feathers is given differently in different\ncopies. The statement that he saw the feathers sink and the iron swim\nis made in the Reyssbuch edition, Frankfort, 1584. The story, like the\nsaints' legends, evidently grew as time went on, but is none the less\ninteresting as showing the general credulity. Since writing the above, I\nhave been glad to find my view of Mandeville's honesty confirmed by the\nRev. Dr. Robinson, and by Mr. Gage in his edition of Ritter's Palestine.\n\n\nIn the fifteenth century wonders increased. In 1418 we have the Lord of\nCaumont, who makes a pilgrimage and gives us a statement which is\nthe result of the theological reasoning of centuries, and especially\ninteresting as a typical example of the theological method in contrast\nwith the scientific. He could not understand how the blessed waters of\nthe Jordan could be allowed to mingle with the accursed waters of the\nDead Sea. In spite, then, of the eye of sense, he beheld the water with\nthe eye of faith, and calmly announced that the Jordan water passes\nthrough the sea, but that the two masses of water are not mingled. As to\nthe salt statue of Lot's wife, he declares it to be still existing; and,\ncopying a table of indulgences granted by the Church to pious pilgrims,\nhe puts down the visit to the salt statue as giving an indulgence of\nseven years.\n\nToward the end of the century we have another traveller yet more\ninfluential: Bernard of Breydenbach, Dean of Mainz. His book of travels\nwas published in 1486, at the famous press of Schoeffer, and in various\ntranslations it was spread through Europe, exercising an influence wide\nand deep. His first important notice of the Dead Sea is as follows: \"In\nthis, Tirus the serpent is found, and from him the Tiriac medicine is\nmade. He is blind, and so full of venom that there is no remedy for\nhis bite except cutting off the bitten part. He can only be taken by\nstriking him and making him angry; then his venom flies into his head\nand tail.\" Breydenbach calls the Dead Sea \"the chimney of hell,\" and\nrepeats the old story as to the miraculous solvent for its bitumen.\nHe, too, makes the statement that the holy water of the Jordan does not\nmingle with the accursed water of the infernal sea, but increases the\nmiracle which Caumont had announced by saying that, although the waters\nappear to come together, the Jordan is really absorbed in the earth\nbefore it reaches the sea.\n\nAs to Lot's wife, various travellers at that time had various fortunes.\nSome, like Caumont and Breydenbach, took her continued existence for\ngranted; some, like Count John of Solms, saw her and were greatly\nedified; some, like Hans Werli, tried to find her and could not, but,\nlike St. Silvia, a thousand years before, were none the less edified by\nthe idea that, for some inscrutable purpose, the sea had been allowed to\nhide her from them; some found her larger than they expected, even forty\nfeet high, as was the salt pillar which happened to be standing at the\nvisit of Commander Lynch in 1848; but this only added a new proof to the\nmiracle, for the text was remembered, \"There were giants in those days.\"\n\nOut of the mass of works of pilgrims during the fifteenth century I\nselect just one more as typical of the theological view then dominant,\nand this is the noted book of Felix Fabri, a preaching friar of Ulm. I\nselect him, because even so eminent an authority in our own time as Dr.\nEdward Robinson declares him to have been the most thorough, thoughtful,\nand enlightened traveller of that century.\n\nFabri is greatly impressed by the wonders of the Dead Sea, and typical\nof his honesty influenced by faith is his account of the Dead Sea fruit;\nhe describes it with almost perfect accuracy, but adds the statement\nthat when mature it is \"filled with ashes and cinders.\"\n\nAs to the salt statue, he says: \"We saw the place between the sea and\nMount Segor, but could not see the statue itself because we were too far\ndistant to see anything of human size; but we saw it with firm faith,\nbecause we believed Scripture, which speaks of it; and we were filled\nwith wonder.\"\n\nTo sustain absolute faith in the statue he reminds his reader's that\n\"God is able even of these stones to raise up seed to Abraham,\" and goes\ninto a long argument, discussing such transformations as those of King\nAtlas and Pygmalion's statue, with a multitude of others, winding up\nwith the case, given in the miracles of St. Jerome, of a heretic who was\nchanged into a log of wood, which was then burned.\n\nHe gives a statement of the Hebrews that Lot's wife received her\npeculiar punishment because she had refused to add salt to the food\nof the angels when they visited her, and he preaches a short sermon in\nwhich he says that, as salt is the condiment of food, so the salt statue\nof Lot's wife \"gives us a condiment of wisdom.\"(433)\n\n\n     (433) For Bernard of Breydenbach, I have used the Latin edition, Mentz,\n1486, in the White collection, Cornell University, also the German\nedition in the Reyssbuch. For John of Solms, Werli, and the like, see\nthe Reyssbuch, which gives a full text of their travels. For Fabri\n(Schmid), see, for his value, Robinson; also Tobler, Bibliographia, pp.\n53 et seq.; and for texts, see Reyssbuch, pp. 122b et seq., but best the\nFratris Fel. Fabri Evagatorium, ed. Hassler, Stuttgart, 1843, vol. iii,\npp. 172 et seq. His book now has been translated into English by the\nPalestine Pilgrims' Text Society.\n\n\nThere were, indeed, many discrepancies in the testimony of travellers\nregarding the salt pillar--so many, in fact, that at a later period the\nlearned Dom Calmet acknowledged that they shook his belief in the whole\nmatter; but, during this earlier time, under the complete sway of the\ntheological spirit, these difficulties only gave new and more glorious\nopportunities for faith.\n\nFor, if a considerable interval occurred between the washing of one salt\npillar out of existence and the washing of another into existence, the\nidea arose that the statue, by virtue of the soul which still remained\nin it, had departed on some mysterious excursion. Did it happen that one\nstatue was washed out one year in one place and another statue another\nyear in another place, this difficulty was surmounted by believing that\nLot's wife still walked about. Did it happen that a salt column was\nundermined by the rains and fell, this was believed to be but another\nsign of life. Did a pillar happen to be covered in part by the sea,\nthis was enough to arouse the belief that the statue from time to time\ndescended into the Dead Sea depths--possibly to satisfy that old fatal\ncuriosity regarding her former neighbours.\n\nDid some smaller block of salt happen to be washed out near the statue,\nit was believed that a household dog, also transformed into salt, had\nfollowed her back from beneath the deep. Did more statues than one\nappear at one time, that simply made the mystery more impressive.\n\nIn facts now so easy of scientific explanation the theologians found\nwonderful matter for argument.\n\nOne great question among them was whether the soul of Lot's wife did\nreally remain in the statue. On one side it was insisted that, as Holy\nScripture declares that Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of salt,\nand as she was necessarily made up of a soul and a body, the soul must\nhave become part of the statue. This argument was clinched by citing\nthat passage in the Book of Wisdom in which the salt pillar is declared\nto be still standing as \"the monument of an unbelieving SOUL.\" On the\nother hand, it was insisted that the soul of the woman must have been\nincorporeal and immortal, and hence could not have been changed into a\nsubstance corporeal and mortal. Naturally, to this it would be answered\nthat the salt pillar was no more corporeal than the ordinary materials\nof the human body, and that it had been made miraculously immortal,\nand \"with God all things are possible.\" Thus were opened long vistas of\ntheological discussion.(434)\n\n\n     (434) For a brief statement of the main arguments for and against the\nidea that the soul of Lot's wife remained within the salt statue, see\nCornelius a Lapide, Commentarius in Pentateuchum, Antwerp, 1697, chap.\nxix.\n\n\nAs we enter the sixteenth century the Dead Sea myths, and especially the\nlegends of Lot's wife, are still growing. In 1507 Father Anselm of the\nMinorites declares that the sea sometimes covers the feet of the statue,\nsometimes the legs, sometimes the whole body.\n\nIn 1555, Gabriel Giraudet, priest at Puy, journeyed through Palestine.\nHis faith was robust, and his attitude toward the myths of the Dead\nSea is seen by his declaration that its waters are so foul that one can\nsmell them at a distance of three leagues; that straw, hay, or feathers\nthrown into them will sink, but that iron and other metals will float;\nthat criminals have been kept in them three or four days and could not\ndrown. As to Lot's wife, he says that he found her \"lying there, her\nback toward heaven, converted into salt stone; for I touched her,\nscratched her, and put a piece of her into my mouth, and she tasted\nsalt.\"\n\nAt the centre of all these legends we see, then, the idea that,\nthough there were no living beasts in the Dead Sea, the people of the\noverwhelmed cities were still living beneath its waters, probably in\nhell; that there was life in the salt statue; and that it was still\ncurious regarding its old neighbours.\n\nHence such travellers in the latter years of the century as Count Albert\nof Lowenstein and Prince Nicolas Radziwill are not at all weakened\nin faith by failing to find the statue. What the former is capable of\nbelieving is seen by his statement that in a certain cemetery at Cairo\nduring one night in the year the dead thrust forth their feet, hands,\nlimbs, and even rise wholly from their graves.\n\nThere seemed, then, no limit to these pious beliefs. The idea that\nthere is merit in credulity, with the love of myth-making and\nmiracle-mongering, constantly made them larger. Nor did the Protestant\nReformation diminish them at first; it rather strengthened them and\nfixed them more firmly in the popular mind. They seemed destined to last\nforever. How they were thus strengthened at first, under Protestantism,\nand how they were finally dissolved away in the atmosphere of scientific\nthought, will now be shown.(435)\n\n\n     (435) For Father Anselm, see his Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, in H.\nCanisius, Thesaurus Monument Eccles., Basnage edition, Amsterdam, 1725,\nvol. iv, p. 788. For Giraudet, see his Discours du Voyage d'Outre-Mer,\nParis, 1585, p. 56a. For Radziwill and Lowenstein, see the Reyssbuch,\nespecially p. 198a.\n\n\n\n\n\nIII. POST-REFORMATION CULMINATION OF THE DEAD SEA LEGENDS.--BEGINNINGS\nOF A HEALTHFUL SCEPTICISM.\n\n\nThe first effect of the Protestant Reformation was to popularize the\nolder Dead Sea legends, and to make the public mind still more receptive\nfor the newer ones.\n\nLuther's great pictorial Bible, so powerful in fixing the ideas of the\nGerman people, showed by very striking engravings all three of these\nearlier myths--the destruction of the cities by fire from heaven, the\ntransformation of Lot's wife, and the vile origin of the hated Moabites\nand Ammonites; and we find the salt statue, especially, in this and\nother pictorial Bibles, during generation after generation.\n\nCatholic peoples also held their own in this display of faith. About\n1517 Francois Regnault published at Paris a compilation on Palestine\nenriched with woodcuts: in this the old Dead Sea legend of the \"serpent\nTyrus\" reappears embellished, and with it various other new versions\nof old stories. Five years later Bartholomew de Salignac travels in the\nHoly Land, vouches for the continued existence of the Lot's wife statue,\nand gives new life to an old marvel by insisting that the sacred waters\nof the Jordan are not really poured into the infernal basin of the Dead\nSea, but that they are miraculously absorbed by the earth.\n\nThese ideas were not confined to the people at large; we trace them\namong scholars.\n\nIn 1581, Bunting, a North German professor and theologian, published his\nItinerary of Holy Scripture, and in this the Dead Sea and Lot legends\ncontinue to increase. He tells us that the water of the sea \"changes\nthree times every day\"; that it \"spits forth fire\" that it throws up\n\"on high\" great foul masses which \"burn like pitch\" and \"swim about like\nhuge oxen\"; that the statue of Lot's wife is still there, and that it\nshines like salt.\n\nIn 1590, Christian Adrichom, a Dutch theologian, published his famous\nwork on sacred geography. He does not insist upon the Dead Sea legends\ngenerally, but declares that the statue of Lot's wife is still in\nexistence, and on his map he gives a picture of her standing at Usdum.\n\nNor was it altogether safe to dissent from such beliefs. Just as, under\nthe papal sway, men of science were severely punished for wrong views of\nthe physical geography of the earth in general, so, when Calvin decided\nto burn Servetus, he included in his indictment for heresy a charge\nthat Servetus, in his edition of Ptolemy, had made unorthodox statements\nregarding the physical geography of Palestine.(436)\n\n\n     (436) For biblical engravings showing Lot's wife transformed into a\nsalt statue, etc., see Luther's Bible, 1534, p. xi; also the pictorial\nElectoral Bible; also Merian's Icones Biblicae of 1625; also the\nfrontpiece of the Luther Bible published at Nuremberg in 1708; also\nScheuchzer's Kupfer-Bibel, Augsburg, 1731, Tab. lxxx. For the account of\nthe Dead Sea serpent \"Tyrus,\" etc., see La Grande Voyage de Hierusalem,\nParis (1517?), p. xxi. For De Salignac's assertion regarding the salt\npillar and suggestion regarding the absorption of the Jordan before\nreaching the Dead Sea, see his Itinerarium Sacrae Scripturae, Magdeburg,\n1593, SS 34 and 35. For Bunting, see his Itinerarium Sacrae Scripturae,\nMagdeburg, 1589, pp. 78, 79. For Andrichom's picture of the salt statue,\nsee map, p. 38, and text, p. 205, of his Theatrum Terrae Sanctae, 1613.\nFor Calvin and Servetus, see Willis, Servetus and Calvin, pp. 96, 307;\nalso the Servetus edition of Ptolemy.\n\n\nProtestants and Catholics vied with each other in the making of new\nmyths. Thus, in his Most Devout Journey, published in 1608, Jean\nZvallart, Mayor of Ath in Hainault, confesses himself troubled by\nconflicting stories about the salt statue, but declares himself sound in\nthe faith that \"some vestige of it still remains,\" and makes up for\nhis bit of freethinking by adding a new mythical horror to the\nregion--\"crocodiles,\" which, with the serpents and the \"foul odour of\nthe sea,\" prevented his visit to the salt mountains.\n\nIn 1615 Father Jean Boucher publishes the first of many editions of his\nSacred Bouquet of the Holy Land. He depicts the horrors of the Dead Sea\nin a number of striking antitheses, and among these is the statement\nthat it is made of mud rather than of water, that it soils whatever is\nput into it, and so corrupts the land about it that not a blade of grass\ngrows in all that region.\n\nIn the same spirit, thirteen years later, the Protestant Christopher\nHeidmann publishes his Palaestina, in which he speaks of a fluid\nresembling blood oozing from the rocks about the Dead Sea, and cites\nauthorities to prove that the statue of Lot's wife still exists and\ngives signs of life.\n\nYet, as we near the end of the sixteenth century, some evidences of a\nhealthful and fruitful scepticism begin to appear.\n\nThe old stream of travellers, commentators, and preachers, accepting\ntradition and repeating what they have been told, flows on; but here and\nthere we are refreshed by the sight of a man who really begins to think\nand look for himself.\n\nFirst among these is the French naturalist Pierre Belon. As regards the\nordinary wonders, he had the simple faith of his time. Among a multitude\nof similar things, he believed that he saw the stones on which the\ndisciples were sleeping during the prayer of Christ; the stone on which\nthe Lord sat when he raised Lazarus from the dead; the Lord's footprints\non the stone from which he ascended into heaven; and, most curious of\nall, \"the stone which the builders rejected.\" Yet he makes some advance\non his predecessors, since he shows in one passage that he had thought\nout the process by which the simpler myths of Palestine were made. For,\nbetween Bethlehem and Jerusalem, he sees a field covered with small\npebbles, and of these he says: \"The common people tell you that a man\nwas once sowing peas there, when Our Lady passed that way and asked\nhim what he was doing; the man answered 'I am sowing pebbles' and\nstraightway all the peas were changed into these little stones.\"\n\nHis ascribing belief in this explanatory transformation myth to the\n\"common people\" marks the faint dawn of a new epoch.\n\nTypical also of this new class is the German botanist Leonhard Rauwolf.\nHe travels through Palestine in 1575, and, though devout and at times\ncredulous, notes comparatively few of the old wonders, while he makes\nthoughtful and careful mention of things in nature that he really saw;\nhe declines to use the eyes of the monks, and steadily uses his own to\ngood purpose.\n\nAs we go on in the seventeenth century, this current of new thought is\nyet more evident; a habit of observing more carefully and of comparing\nobservations had set in; the great voyages of discovery by Columbus,\nVasco da Gama, Magellan, and others were producing their effect; and\nthis effect was increased by the inductive philosophy of Bacon, the\nreasonings of Descartes, and the suggestions of Montaigne.\n\nSo evident was this current that, as far back as the early days of the\ncentury, a great theologian, Quaresmio of Lodi, had made up his mind\nto stop it forever. In 1616, therefore, he began his ponderous work\nentitled The Historical, Theological, and Moral Explanation of the\nHoly Land. He laboured upon it for nine years, gave nine years more to\nperfecting it, and then put it into the hands of the great publishing\nhouse of Plantin at Antwerp: they were four years in printing and\ncorrecting it, and when it at last appeared it seemed certain to\nestablish the theological view of the Holy Land for all time. While\ntaking abundant care of other myths which he believed sanctified by Holy\nScripture, Quaresmio devoted himself at great length to the Dead Sea,\nbut above all to the salt statue; and he divides his chapter on it\ninto three parts, each headed by a question: First, \"HOW was Lot's\nwife changed into a statue of salt?\" secondly, \"WHERE was she thus\ntransformed?\" and, thirdly, \"DOES THAT STATUE STILL EXIST?\" Through each\nof these divisions he fights to the end all who are inclined to swerve\nin the slightest degree from the orthodox opinion. He utterly refuses\nto compromise with any modern theorists. To all such he says, \"The\nnarration of Moses is historical and is to be received in its natural\nsense, and no right-thinking man will deny this.\" To those who favoured\nthe figurative interpretation he says, \"With such reasonings any passage\nof Scripture can be denied.\"\n\nAs to the spot where the miracle occurred, he discusses four places,\nbut settles upon the point where the picture of the statue is given in\nAdrichom's map. As to the continued existence of the statue, he plays\nwith the opposing view as a cat fondles a mouse; and then shows that the\nmost revered ancient authorities, venerable men still living, and the\nBedouins, all agree that it is still in being. Throughout the whole\nchapter his thoroughness in scriptural knowledge and his profundity\nin logic are only excelled by his scorn for those theologians who were\nwilling to yield anything to rationalism.\n\nSo powerful was this argument that it seemed to carry everything before\nit, not merely throughout the Roman obedience, but among the most\neminent theologians of Protestantism.\n\nAs regards the Roman Church, we may take as a type the missionary priest\nEugene Roger, who, shortly after the appearance of Quaresmio's book,\npublished his own travels in Palestine. He was an observant man, and his\nwork counts among those of real value; but the spirit of Quaresmio had\ntaken possession of him fully. His work is prefaced with a map showing\nthe points of most importance in scriptural history, and among these he\nidentifies the place where Samson slew the thousand Philistines with the\njawbone of an ass, and where he hid the gates of Gaza; the cavern which\nAdam and Eve inhabited after their expulsion from paradise; the spot\nwhere Balaam's ass spoke; the tree on which Absalom was hanged; the\nplace where Jacob wrestled with the angel; the steep place where the\nswine possessed of devils plunged into the sea; the spot where the\nprophet Elijah was taken up in a chariot of fire; and, of course, the\nposition of the salt statue which was once Lot's wife. He not only\nindicates places on land, but places in the sea; thus he shows where\nJonah was swallowed by the whale, and \"where St. Peter caught one\nhundred and fifty-three fishes.\"\n\nAs to the Dead Sea miracles generally, he does not dwell on them\nat great length; he evidently felt that Quaresmio had exhausted the\nsubject; but he shows largely the fruits of Quaresmio's teaching in\nother matters.\n\nSo, too, we find the thoughts and words of Quaresmio echoing afar\nthrough the German universities, in public disquisitions, dissertations,\nand sermons. The great Bible commentators, both Catholic and Protestant,\ngenerally agreed in accepting them.\n\nBut, strong as this theological theory was, we find that, as time went\non, it required to be braced somewhat, and in 1692 Wedelius, Professor\nof Medicine at Jena, chose as the subject of his inaugural address The\nPhysiology of the Destruction of Sodom and of the Statue of Salt.\n\nIt is a masterly example of \"sanctified science.\" At great length he\ndwells on the characteristics of sulphur, salt, and thunderbolts; mixes\nup scriptural texts, theology, and chemistry after a most bewildering\nfashion; and finally comes to the conclusion that a thunderbolt, flung\nby the Almighty, calcined the body of Lot's wife, and at the same time\nvitrified its particles into a glassy mass looking like salt.(437)\n\n\n     (437) For Zvallart, see his Tres-devot Voyage de Ierusalem, Antwerp,\n1608, book iv, chapter viii. His journey was made twenty years before.\nFor Father Boucher, see his Bouquet de la Terre Saincte, Paris, 1622,\npp. 447, 448. For Heidmann, see his Palaestina, 1689, pp. 58-62. For\nBelon's credulity in matters referred to, see his Observations de\nPlusieurs Singularitez, etc., Paris, 1553, pp. 141-144; and for the\nlegend of the peas changed into pebbles, p. 145; see also Lartet in De\nLuynes, vol. iii, p. 11. For Rauwolf, see the Reyssbuch, and Tobler,\nBibliographia. For a good acoount of the influence of Montaigne in\ndeveloping French scepticism, see Prevost-Paradol's study on Montaigne\nprefixed to the Le Clerc edition of the Essays, Paris, 1865; also the\nwell-known passages in Lecky's Rationalism in Europe. For Quaresmio\nI have consulted both the Plantin edition of 1639 and the superb new\nVenice edition of 1880-'82. The latter, though less prized by book\nfanciers, is the more valuable, since it contains some very interesting\nrecent notes. For the above discussion, see Plantin edition, vol. ii,\npp. 758 et seq., and Venice edition, vol. ii, pp. 572-574. As to the\neffect of Quaresmio on the Protestant Church, see Wedelius, De Statua\nSalis, Jenae, 1692, pp.6, 7, and elsewhere. For Eugene Roger, see his La\nTerre Saincte, Paris, 1664; the map, showing various sites referred to,\nis in the preface; and for basilisks, salamanders, etc., see pp. 89-92,\n139, 218, and elsewhere.\n\n\nNot only were these views demonstrated, so far as theologico-scientific\nreasoning could demonstrate anything, but it was clearly shown, by a\ncontinuous chain of testimony from the earliest ages, that the salt\nstatue at Usdum had been recognised as the body of Lot's wife by Jews,\nMohammedans, and the universal Christian Church, \"always, everywhere,\nand by all.\"\n\nUnder the influence of teachings like these--and of the winter\nrains--new wonders began to appear at the salt pillar. In 1661 the\nFranciscan monk Zwinner published his travels in Palestine, and gave not\nonly most of the old myths regarding the salt statue, but a new one, in\nsome respects more striking than any of the old--for he had heard that a\ndog, also transformed into salt, was standing by the side of Lot's wife.\n\nEven the more solid Benedictine scholars were carried away, and we find\nin the Sacred History by Prof. Mezger, of the order of St. Benedict,\npublished in 1700, a renewal of the declaration that the salt statue\nmust be a \"PERPETUAL memorial.\"\n\nBut it was soon evident that the scientific current was still working\nbeneath this ponderous mass of theological authority. A typical evidence\nof this we find in 1666 in the travels of Doubdan, a canon of St. Denis.\nAs to the Dead Sea, he says that he saw no smoke, no clouds, and no\n\"black, sticky water\"; as to the statue of Lot's wife, he says, \"The\nmoderns do not believe so easily that she has lasted so long\"; then, as\nif alarmed at his own boldness, he concedes that the sea MAY be black\nand sticky in the middle; and from Lot's wife he escapes under cover of\nsome pious generalities. Four years later another French ecclesiastic,\nJacques Goujon, referring in his published travels to the legends of\nthe salt pillar, says: \"People may believe these stories as much as\nthey choose; I did not see it, nor did I go there.\" So, too, in\n1697, Morison, a dignitary of the French Church, having travelled in\nPalestine, confesses that, as to the story of the pillar of salt, he has\ndifficulty in believing it.\n\nThe same current is observed working still more strongly in the\ntravels of the Rev. Henry Maundrell, an English chaplain at Aleppo, who\ntravelled through Palestine during the same year. He pours contempt over\nthe legends of the Dead Sea in general: as to the story that birds could\nnot fly over it, he says that he saw them flying there; as to the utter\nabsence of life in the sea, he saw small shells in it; he saw no traces\nof any buried cities; and as to the stories regarding the statue of\nLot's wife and the proposal to visit it, he says, \"Nor could we give\nfaith enough to these reports to induce us to go on such an errand.\"\n\nThe influence of the Baconian philosophy on his mind is very clear; for,\nin expressing his disbelief in the Dead Sea apples, with their contents\nof ashes, he says that he saw none, and he cites Lord Bacon in support\nof scepticism on this and similar points.\n\nBut the strongest effect of this growing scepticism is seen near the end\nof that century, when the eminent Dutch commentator Clericus (Le Clerc)\npublished his commentary on the Pentateuch and his Dissertation on the\nStatue of Salt.\n\nAt great length he brings all his shrewdness and learning to bear\nagainst the whole legend of the actual transformation of Lot's wife and\nthe existence of the salt pillar, and ends by saying that \"the whole\nstory is due to the vanity of some and the credulity of more.\"\n\nIn the beginning of the eighteenth century we find new tributaries\nto this rivulet of scientific thought. In 1701 Father Felix Beaugrand\ndismisses the Dead Sea legends and the salt statue very curtly and\ndryly--expressing not his belief in it, but a conventional wish to\nbelieve.\n\nIn 1709 a scholar appeared in another part of Europe and of different\nfaith, who did far more than any of his predecessors to envelop the Dead\nSea legends in an atmosphere of truth--Adrian Reland, professor at the\nUniversity of Utrecht. His work on Palestine is a monument of patient\nscholarship, having as its nucleus a love of truth as truth: there is\nno irreverence in him, but he quietly brushes away a great mass of myths\nand legends: as to the statue of Lot's wife, he treats it warily, but\napplies the comparative method to it with killing effect, by showing\nthat the story of its miraculous renewal is but one among many of its\nkind.(438)\n\n\n     (438) For Zwinner, see his Blumenbuch des Heyligen Landes, Munchen,\n1661, p. 454. For Mezger, see his Sacra Historia, Augsburg, 1700, p. 30.\nFor Doubdan, see his Voyage de la Terre-Sainte, Paris, 1670, pp. 338,\n339; also Tobler and Gage's Ritter. For Goujon, see his Histoire et\nVoyage de la Terre Saincte, Lyons, 1670, p. 230, etc. For Morison,\nsee his Voyage, book ii, pp. 516, 517. For Maundrell, see in Wright's\nCollection, pp. 383 et seq. For Clericus, see his Dissertation de Salis\nStatua, in his Pentateuch, edition of 1696, pp. 327 et seq. For Father\nBeaugrand, see his Voyage, Paris, 1701, pp. 137 et seq. For Reland, see\nhis Palaestina, Utrecht, 1714, vol. i, pp. 61-254, passim.\n\n\nYet to superficial observers the old current of myth and marvel seemed\nto flow into the eighteenth century as strong as ever, and of this\nwe may take two typical evidences. The first of these is the Pious\nPilgrimage of Vincent Briemle. His journey was made about 1710; and his\nwork, brought out under the auspices of a high papal functionary some\nyears later, in a heavy quarto, gave new life to the stories of the\nhellish character of the Dead Sea, and especially to the miraculous\nrenewal of the salt statue.\n\nIn 172O came a still more striking effort to maintain the old belief\nin the north of Europe, for in that year the eminent theologian Masius\npublished his great treatise on The Conversion of Lot's Wife into a\nStatue of Salt.\n\nEvidently intending that this work should be the last word on this\nsubject in Germany, as Quaresmio had imagined that his work would be\nthe last in Italy, he develops his subject after the high scholastic and\ntheologic manner. Calling attention first to the divine command in the\nNew Testament, \"Remember Lot's wife,\" he argues through a long series\nof chapters. In the ninth of these he discusses \"the impelling cause\" of\nher looking back, and introduces us to the question, formerly so often\ntreated by theologians, whether the soul of Lot's wife was finally\nsaved. Here we are glad to learn that the big, warm heart of Luther\nlifted him above the common herd of theologians, and led him to declare\nthat she was \"a faithful and saintly woman,\" and that she certainly was\nnot eternally damned. In justice to the Roman Church also it should be\nsaid that several of her most eminent commentators took a similar view,\nand insisted that the sin of Lot's wife was venial, and therefore, at\nthe worst, could only subject her to the fires of purgatory.\n\nThe eleventh chapter discusses at length the question HOW she was\nconverted into salt, and, mentioning many theological opinions, dwells\nespecially upon the view of Rivetus, that a thunderbolt, made up\napparently of fire, sulphur, and salt, wrought her transformation at the\nsame time that it blasted the land; and he bases this opinion upon the\ntwenty-ninth chapter of Deuteronomy and the one hundred and seventh\nPsalm.\n\nLater, Masius presents a sacred scientific theory that \"saline particles\nentered into her until her whole body was infected\"; and with this\nhe connects another piece of sanctified science, to the effect that\n\"stagnant bile\" may have rendered the surface of her body \"entirely\nshining, bitter, dry, and deformed.\"\n\nFinally, he comes to the great question whether the salt pillar is still\nin existence. On this he is full and fair. On one hand he allows that\nLuther thought that it was involved in the general destruction of Sodom\nand Gomorrah, and he cites various travellers who had failed to find it;\nbut, on the other hand, he gives a long chain of evidence to show\nthat it continued to exist: very wisely he reminds the reader that the\npositive testimony of those who have seen it must outweigh the negative\ntestimony of those who have not, and he finally decides that the salt\nstatue is still in being.\n\nNo doubt a work like this produced a considerable effect in Protestant\ncountries; indeed, this effect seems evident as far off as England, for,\nin 172O, we find in Dean Prideaux's Old and New Testament connected\na map on which the statue of salt is carefully indicated. So, too, in\nHolland, in the Sacred Geography published at Utrecht in 1758 by\nthe theologian Bachiene, we find him, while showing many signs of\nrationalism, evidently inclined to the old views as to the existence\nof the salt pillar; but just here comes a curious evidence of the real\ndirection of the current of thought through the century, for, nine years\nlater, in the German translation of Bachiene's work we find copious\nnotes by the translator in a far more rationalistic spirit; indeed,\nwe see the dawn of the inevitable day of compromise, for we now have,\ninstead of the old argument that the divine power by one miraculous\nact changed Lot's wife into a salt pillar, the suggestion that she was\ncaught in a shower of sulphur and saltpetre, covered by it, and that the\nresult was a lump, which in a general way IS CALLED in our sacred books\n\"a pillar of salt.\"(439)\n\n\n     (439) For Briemle, see his Andachtige Pilgerfahrt, p. 129. For Masius,\nsee his De Uxore Lothi in Statuam Salis Conversa, Hafniae, 1720,\nespecially pages 29-31. For Dean Prideaux, see his Old and New Testament\nconnected in the History of the Jews, 1720, map at page 7. For Bachiene,\nsee his Historische und geographische Beschreibung von Palaestina,\nLeipzig, 1766, vol. i, pp. 118-120, and notes.\n\n\nBut, from the middle of the eighteenth century, the new current sets\nthrough Christendom with ever-increasing strength. Very interesting is\nit to compare the great scriptural commentaries of the middle of this\ncentury with those published a century earlier.\n\nOf the earlier ones we may take Matthew Poole's Synopsis as a type:\nas authorized by royal decree in 1667 it contains very substantial\narguments for the pious belief in the statue. Of the later ones we may\ntake the edition of the noted commentary of the Jesuit Tirinus seventy\nyears later: while he feels bound to present the authorities, he\nevidently endeavours to get rid of the subject as speedily as possible\nunder cover of conventionalities; of the spirit of Quaresmio he shows no\ntrace.(440)\n\n\n     (440) For Poole (Polus) see his Synopsis, 1669, p. 179; and for Titinus,\nthe Lyons edition of his Commentary, 1736, p. 10.\n\n\nAbout 1760 came a striking evidence of the strength of this new current.\nThe Abate Mariti then published his book upon the Holy Land; and of\nthis book, by an Italian ecclesiastic, the most eminent of German\nbibliographers in this field says that it first broke a path for\ncritical study of the Holy Land. Mariti is entirely sceptical as to the\nsinking of the valley of Siddim and the overwhelming of the cities. He\nspeaks kindly of a Capuchin Father who saw everywhere at the Dead Sea\ntraces of the divine malediction, while he himself could not see them,\nand says, \"It is because a Capuchin carries everywhere the five senses\nof faith, while I only carry those of nature.\" He speaks of \"the lies of\nJosephus,\" and makes merry over \"the rude and shapeless block\" which the\nguide assured him was the statue of Lot's wife, explaining the want\nof human form in the salt pillar by telling him that this complete\nmetamorphosis was part of her punishment.\n\nAbout twenty years later, another remarkable man, Volney, broaches the\nsubject in what was then known as the \"philosophic\" spirit. Between the\nyears 1783 and 1785 he made an extensive journey through the Holy Land\nand published a volume of travels which by acuteness of thought and\nvigour of style secured general attention. In these, myth and legend\nwere thrown aside, and we have an account simply dictated by the love of\ntruth as truth. He, too, keeps the torch of science burning by applying\nhis geological knowledge to the regions which he traverses.\n\nAs we look back over the eighteenth century we see mingled with the new\ncurrent of thought, and strengthening it, a constantly increasing stream\nof more strictly scientific observation and reflection.\n\nTo review it briefly: in the very first years of the century Maraldi\nshowed the Paris Academy of Sciences fossil fishes found in the Lebanon\nregion; a little later, Cornelius Bruyn, in the French edition of his\nEastern travels, gave well-drawn representations of fossil fishes and\nshells, some of them from the region of the Dead Sea; about the middle\nof the century Richard Pococke, Bishop of Meath, and Korte of Altona\nmade more statements of the same sort; and toward the close of the\ncentury, as we have seen, Volney gave still more of these researches,\nwith philosophical deductions from them.\n\nThe result of all this was that there gradually dawned upon thinking\nmen the conviction that, for ages before the appearance of man on the\nplanet, and during all the period since his appearance, natural laws\nhave been steadily in force in Palestine as elsewhere; this conviction\nobliged men to consider other than supernatural causes for the phenomena\nof the Dead Sea, and myth and marvel steadily shrank in value.\n\nBut at the very threshold of the nineteenth century Chateaubriand came\ninto the field, and he seemed to banish the scientific spirit, though\nwhat he really did was to conceal it temporarily behind the vapours\nof his rhetoric. The time was propitious for him. It was the period of\nreaction after the French Revolution, when what was called religion was\nagain in fashion, and when even atheists supported it as a good thing\nfor common people: of such an epoch Chateaubriand, with his superficial\ninformation, thin sentiment, and showy verbiage, was the foreordained\nprophet. His enemies were wont to deny that he ever saw the Holy Land;\nwhether he did or not, he added nothing to real knowledge, but simply\nthrew a momentary glamour over the regions he described, and especially\nover the Dead Sea. The legend of Lot's wife he carefully avoided, for he\nknew too well the danger of ridicule in France.\n\nAs long as the Napoleonic and Bourbon reigns lasted, and indeed for some\ntime afterward, this kind of dealing with the Holy Land was fashionable,\nand we have a long series of men, especially of Frenchmen, who evidently\nreceived their impulse from Chateaubriand.\n\nAbout 1831 De Geramb, Abbot of La Trappe, evidently a very noble and\ndevout spirit, sees vapour above the Dead Sea, but stretches the truth a\nlittle--speaking of it as \"vapour or smoke.\" He could not find the salt\nstatue, and complains of the \"diversity of stories regarding it.\" The\nsimple physical cause of this diversity--the washing out of different\nstatues in different years--never occurs to him; but he comforts himself\nwith the scriptural warrant for the metamorphosis.(441)\n\n\n     (441) For Mariti, see his Voyage, etc., vol. ii, pp. 352-356. For\nTobler's high opinion of him, see the Bibliographia, pp. 132, 133. For\nVolney, see his Voyage en Syrie et Egypte, Paris, 1807, vol. i, pp.\n308 et seq.; also, for a statement of contributions of the eighteenth\ncentury to geology, Lartet in De Luynes's Mer Morte, vol. iii, p. 12.\nFor Cornelius Bruyn, see French edition of his works, 1714 (in which his\nname is given as \"Le Brun\"), especially for representations of fossils,\npp. 309, 375. For Chateaubriand, see his Voyage, etc., vol. ii, part\niii. For De Geramb, see his Voyage, vol. ii, pp. 45-47.\n\n\nBut to the honour of scientific men and scientific truth it should\nbe said that even under Napoleon and the Bourbons there were men who\ncontinued to explore, observe, and describe with the simple love of\ntruth as truth, and in spite of the probability that their researches\nwould be received during their lifetime with contempt and even\nhostility, both in church and state.\n\nThe pioneer in this work of the nineteenth century was the German\nnaturalist Ulrich Seetzen. He began his main investigation in 1806, and\nsoon his learning, courage, and honesty threw a flood of new light into\nthe Dead Sea questions.\n\nIn this light, myth and legend faded more rapidly than ever. Typical\nof his method is his examination of the Dead Sea fruit. He found, on\nreaching Palestine, that Josephus's story regarding it, which had been\naccepted for nearly two thousand years, was believed on all sides; more\nthan this, he found that the original myth had so grown that a multitude\nof respectable people at Bethlehem and elsewhere assured him that not\nonly apples, but pears, pomegranates, figs, lemons, and many other\nfruits which grow upon the shores of the Dead Sea, though beautiful to\nlook upon, were filled with ashes. These good people declared to Seetzen\nthat they had seen these fruits, and that, not long before, a basketful\nof them which had been sent to a merchant of Jaffa had turned to ashes.\n\nSeetzen was evidently perplexed by this mass of testimony and naturally\nanxious to examine these fruits. On arriving at the sea he began to look\nfor them, and the guide soon showed him the \"apples.\" These he found to\nbe simply an asclepia, which had been described by Linnaeus, and which\nis found in the East Indies, Arabia, Egypt, Jamaica, and elsewhere--the\n\"ashes\" being simply seeds. He looked next for the other fruits, and\nthe guide soon found for him the \"lemons\": these he discovered to be a\nspecies of solanum found in other parts of Palestine and elsewhere, and\nthe seeds in these were the famous \"cinders.\" He looked next for the\npears, figs, and other accursed fruits; but, instead of finding them\nfilled with ashes and cinders, he found them like the same fruits in\nother lands, and he tells us that he ate the figs with much pleasure.\n\nSo perished a myth which had been kept alive two thousand years,--partly\nby modes of thought natural to theologians, partly by the self-interest\nof guides, and partly by the love of marvel-mongering among travellers.\n\nThe other myths fared no better. As to the appearance of the sea, he\nfound its waters not \"black and sticky,\" but blue and transparent; he\nfound no smoke rising from the abyss, but tells us that sunlight and\ncloud and shore were pleasantly reflected from the surface. As to Lot's\nwife, he found no salt pillar which had been a careless woman, but the\nArabs showed him many boulders which had once been wicked men.\n\nHis work was worthily continued by a long succession of true\ninvestigators,--among them such travellers or geographers as Burckhardt,\nIrby, Mangles, Fallmerayer, and Carl von Raumer: by men like these the\natmosphere of myth and legend was steadily cleared away; as a rule, they\nsimply forgot Lot's wife altogether.\n\nIn this noble succession should be mentioned an American theologian, Dr.\nEdward Robinson, professor at New York. Beginning about 1826, he devoted\nhimself for thirty years to the thorough study of the geography of\nPalestine, and he found a worthy coadjutor in another American divine,\nDr. Eli Smith. Neither of these men departed openly from the old\ntraditions: that would have cost a heart-breaking price--the loss of all\nfurther opportunity to carry on their researches. Robinson did not even\nthink it best to call attention to the mythical character of much on\nwhich his predecessors had insisted; he simply brought in, more and\nmore, the dry, clear atmosphere of the love of truth for truth's sake,\nand, in this, myths and legends steadily disappeared. By doing this\nhe rendered a far greater service to real Christianity than any other\ntheologian had ever done in this field.\n\nVery characteristic is his dealing with the myth of Lot's wife. Though\nmore than once at Usdum,--though giving valuable information regarding\nthe sea, shore, and mountains there, he carefully avoids all mention of\nthe salt pillar and of the legend which arose from it. In this he set\nan example followed by most of the more thoughtful religious travellers\nsince his time. Very significant is it to see the New Testament\ninjunction, \"Remember Lot's wife,\" so utterly forgotten. These later\ninvestigators seem never to have heard of it; and this constant\nforgetfulness shows the change which had taken place in the enlightened\nthinking of the world.\n\nBut in the year 1848 came an episode very striking in its character and\neffect.\n\nAt that time, the war between the United States and Mexico having\nclosed, Lieutenant Lynch, of the United States Navy, found himself in\nthe port of Vera Cruz, commanding an old hulk, the Supply. Looking about\nfor something to do, it occurred to him to write to the Secretary of\nthe Navy asking permission to explore the Dead Sea. Under ordinary\ncircumstances the proposal would doubtless have been strangled with\nred tape; but, fortunately, the Secretary at that time was Mr. John Y.\nMason, of Virginia. Mr. Mason was famous for his good nature. Both\nat Washington and at Paris, where he was afterward minister, this\npredominant trait has left a multitude of amusing traditions; it was of\nhim that Senator Benton said, \"To be supremely happy he must have his\npaunch full of oysters and his hands full of cards.\"\n\nThe Secretary granted permission, but evidently gave the matter not\nanother thought. As a result, came an expedition the most comical and\none of the most rich in results to be found in American annals. Never\nwas anything so happy-go-lucky. Lieutenant Lynch started with his hulk,\nwith hardly an instrument save those ordinarily found on shipboard, and\nwith a body of men probably the most unfit for anything like scientific\ninvestigation ever sent on such an errand; fortunately, he picked up\na young instructor in mathematics, Mr. Anderson, and added to his\napparatus two strong iron boats.\n\nArriving, after a tedious voyage, on the coast of Asia Minor, he set to\nwork. He had no adequate preparation in general history, archaeology,\nor the physical sciences; but he had his American patriotism, energy,\npluck, pride, and devotion to duty, and these qualities stood him in\ngood stead. With great labour he got the iron boats across the country.\nThen the tug of war began. First of all investigators, he forced his way\nthrough the whole length of the river Jordan and from end to end of the\nDead Sea. There were constant difficulties--geographical, climatic, and\npersonal; but Lynch cut through them all. He was brave or shrewd, as\nthere was need. Anderson proved an admirable helper, and together\nthey made surveys of distances, altitudes, depths, and sundry simple\ninvestigations in a geological, mineralogical, and chemical way. Much\nwas poorly done, much was left undone, but the general result was most\nhonourable both to Lynch and Anderson; and Secretary Mason found that\nhis easy-going patronage of the enterprise was the best act of his\nofficial life.\n\nThe results of this expedition on public opinion were most curious.\nLynch was no scholar in any sense; he had travelled little, and thought\nless on the real questions underlying the whole investigation; as to\nthe difference in depth of the two parts of the lake, he jumped--with\na sailor's disregard of logic--to the conclusion that it somehow proved\nthe mythical account of the overwhelming of the cities, and he indulged\nin reflections of a sort probably suggested by his recollections of\nAmerican Sunday-schools.\n\nEspecially noteworthy is his treatment of the legend of Lot's wife. He\nfound the pillar of salt. It happened to be at that period a circular\ncolumn of friable salt rock, about forty feet high; yet, while he\naccepts every other old myth, he treats the belief that this was once\nthe wife of Lot as \"a superstition.\" One little circumstance added\nenormously to the influence of this book, for, as a frontispiece, he\ninserted a picture of the salt column. It was delineated in rather a\npoetic manner: light streamed upon it, heavy clouds hung above it,\nand, as a background, were ranged buttresses of salt rock furrowed and\nchannelled out by the winter rains: this salt statue picture was spread\nfar and wide, and in thousands of country pulpits and Sunday-schools it\nwas shown as a tribute of science to Scripture.\n\nNor was this influence confined to American Sunday-school children:\nLynch had innocently set a trap into which several European theologians\nstumbled. One of these was Dr. Lorenz Gratz, Vicar-General of Augsburg,\na theological professor. In the second edition of his Theatre of the\nHoly Scriptures, published in 1858, he hails Lynch's discovery of the\nsalt pillar with joy, forgets his allusion to the old theory regarding\nit as a superstition, and does not stop to learn that this was one of a\nsuccession of statues washed out yearly by the rains, but accepts it as\nthe originaL Lot's wife.\n\nThe French churchmen suffered most. About two years after Lynch, De\nSaulcy visited the Dead Sea to explore it thoroughly, evidently in the\ninterest of sacred science--and of his own promotion. Of the modest\nthoroughness of Robinson there is no trace in his writings. He promptly\ndiscovered the overwhelmed cities, which no one before or since has ever\nfound, poured contempt on other investigators, and threw over his whole\nwork an air of piety. But, unfortunately, having a Frenchman's dread of\nridicule, he attempted to give a rationalistic explanation of what he\ncalls \"the enormous needles of salt washed out by the winter rain,\" and\ntheir connection with the Lot's wife myth, and declared his firm belief\nthat she, \"being delayed by curiosity or terror, was crushed by a rock\nwhich rolled down from the mountain, and when Lot and his children\nturned about they saw at the place where she had been only the rock of\nsalt which covered her body.\"\n\nBut this would not do at all, and an eminent ecclesiastic privately and\npublicly expostulated with De Saulcy--very naturally declaring that \"it\nwas not Lot who wrote the book of Genesis.\"\n\nThe result was that another edition of De Saulcy's work was published by\na Church Book Society, with the offending passage omitted; but a passage\nwas retained really far more suggestive of heterodoxy, and this was an\nArab legend accounting for the origin of certain rocks near the Dead Sea\ncuriously resembling salt formations. This in effect ran as follows:\n\n\"Abraham, the friend of God, having come here one day with his mule to\nbuy salt, the salt-workers impudently told him that they had no salt to\nsell, whereupon the patriarch said: 'Your words are, true, you have\nno salt to sell,' and instantly the salt of this whole region was\ntransformed into stone, or rather into a salt which has lost its\nsavour.\"\n\nNothing could be more sure than this story to throw light into the\nmental and moral process by which the salt pillar myth was originally\ncreated.\n\nIn the years 1864 and 1865 came an expedition on a much more imposing\nscale: that of the Duc de Luynes. His knowledge of archaeology and his\nwealth were freely devoted to working the mine which Lynch had opened,\nand, taking with him an iron vessel and several savants, he devoted\nhimself especially to finding the cities of the Dead Sea, and to\ngiving less vague accounts of them than those of De Saulcy. But he\nwas disappointed, and honest enough to confess his disappointment. So\nvanished one of the most cherished parts of the legend.\n\nBut worse remained behind. In the orthodox duke's company was an acute\ngeologist, Monsieur Lartet, who in due time made an elaborate report,\nwhich let a flood of light into the whole region.\n\nThe Abbe Richard had been rejoicing the orthodox heart of France by\nexhibiting some prehistoric flint implements as the knives which Joshua\nhad made for circumcision. By a truthful statement Monsieur Lartet set\nall France laughing at the Abbe, and then turned to the geology of the\nDead Sea basin. While he conceded that man may have seen some volcanic\ncrisis there, and may have preserved a vivid remembrance of the vapour\nthen rising, his whole argument showed irresistibly that all the\nphenomena of the region are due to natural causes, and that, so far from\na sudden rising of the lake above the valley within historic times, it\nhas been for ages steadily subsiding.\n\nSince Balaam was called by Balak to curse his enemies, and \"blessed them\naltogether,\" there has never been a more unexpected tribute to truth.\n\nEven the salt pillar at Usdum, as depicted in Lynch's book, aided to\nundermine the myth among thinking men; for the background of the picture\nshowed other pillars of salt in process of formation; and the ultimate\nresult of all these expeditions was to spread an atmosphere in which\nmyth and legend became more and more attenuated.\n\nTo sum up the main points in this work of the nineteenth century:\nSeetzen, Robinson, and others had found that a human being could\ntraverse the lake without being killed by hellish smoke; that the waters\ngave forth no odours; that the fruits of the region were not created\nfull of cinders to match the desolation of the Dead Sea, but were\ngrowths not uncommon in Asia Minor and elsewhere; in fact, that all the\nphenomena were due to natural causes.\n\nRitter and others had shown that all noted features of the Dead Sea\nand the surrounding country were to be found in various other lakes and\nregions, to which no supernatural cause was ascribed among enlightened\nmen. Lynch, Van de Velde, Osborne, and others had revealed the fact that\nthe \"pillar of salt\" was frequently formed anew by the rains; and Lartet\nand other geologists had given a final blow to the myths by making it\nclear from the markings on the neighbouring rocks that, instead of a\nsudden upheaval of the sea above the valley of Siddim, there had been a\ngradual subsidence for ages.(442)\n\n\n     (442) For Seetzen, see his Reisen, edited by Kruse, Berlin, 1854-'59;\nfor the \"Dead Sea Fruits,\" vol. ii, pp. 231 et seq.; for the appearance\nof the sea, etc., p. 243, and elsewhere; for the Arab explanatory\ntransformation legends, vol. iii, pp. 7, 14, 17. As to similarity of the\n\"pillars of salt\" to columns washed out by rains elsewhere, see Kruse's\ncommentary in vol. iv, p. 240; also Fallmerayer, vol. i, p. 197. For\nIrby and Mangles, see work already cited. For Robinson, see his Biblical\nResearches, London,1841; also his Later Biblical Researches, London,\n1856. For Lynch, see his Narrative, London, 1849. For Gratz, see his\nSchauplatz der Heyl. Schrift, pp. 186, 187. For De Saulcy, see his\nVoyage autour de la Mer Morte, Paris, 1853, especially vol. i, p. 252,\nand his journal of the early months of 1851, in vol. ii, comparing it\nwith his work of the same title published in 1858 in the Bibliotheque\nCatholique de Voyages et du Romans, vol. i, pp. 78-81. For Lartet, see\nhis papers read before the Geographical Society at Paris; also citations\nin Robinson; but, above all, his elaborate reports which form the\ngreater part of the second and third volumes of the monumental work\nwhich bears the name of De Luynes, already cited. For exposures of De\nSaulcey's credulity and errors, see Van de Velde, Syria and Palestine,\npassim; also Canon Tristram's Land of Israel; also De Luynes, passim.\n\n\nEven before all this evidence was in, a judicial decision had been\npronounced upon the whole question by an authority both Christian\nand scientific, from whom there could be no appeal. During the second\nquarter of the century Prof. Carl Ritter, of the University of Berlin,\nbegan giving to the world those researches which have placed him at\nthe head of all geographers ancient or modern, and finally he brought\ntogether those relating to the geography of the Holy Land, publishing\nthem as part of his great work on the physical geography of the\nearth. He was a Christian, and nothing could be more reverent than his\ntreatment of the whole subject; but his German honesty did not permit\nhim to conceal the truth, and he simply classed together all the stories\nof the Dead Sea--old and new--no matter where found, whether in the\nsacred books of Jews, Christians, or Mohammedans, whether in lives of\nsaints or accounts of travellers, as \"myths\" and \"sagas.\"\n\nFrom this decision there has never been among intelligent men any\nappeal.\n\nThe recent adjustment of orthodox thought to the scientific view of the\nDead Sea legends presents some curious features. As typical we may\ntake the travels of two German theologians between 1860 and 1870--John\nKranzel, pastor in Munich, and Peter Schegg, lately professor in the\nuniversity of that city.\n\nThe archdiocese of Munich-Freising is one of those in which the attempt\nto suppress modern scientific thought has been most steadily carried on.\nIts archbishops have constantly shown themselves assiduous in securing\ncardinals' hats by thwarting science and by stupefying education.\nThe twin towers of the old cathedral of Munich have seemed to throw a\nkilling shadow over intellectual development in that region. Naturally,\nthen, these two clerical travellers from that diocese did not commit\nthemselves to clearing away any of the Dead Sea myths; but it is\nsignificant that neither of them follows the example of so many of their\nclerical predecessors in defending the salt-pillar legend: they steadily\navoid it altogether.\n\nThe more recent history of the salt pillar, since Lynch, deserves\nmention. It appears that the travellers immediately after him found\nit shaped by the storms into a spire; that a year or two later it had\nutterly disappeared; and about the year 1870 Prof. Palmer, on visiting\nthe place, found at some distance from the main salt bed, as he says,\n\"a tall, isolated needle of rock, which does really bear a curious\nresemblance to an Arab woman with a child upon her shoulders.\"\n\nAnd, finally, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, the standard work of\nreference for English-speaking scholars, makes its concession to the old\nbelief regarding Sodom and Gomorrah as slight as possible, and the myth\nof Lot's wife entirely disappears.\n\n\n\n\nIV. THEOLOGICAL EFFORTS AT COMPROMISE.--TRIUMPH OF THE SCIENTIFIC VIEW.\n\n\nThe theological effort to compromise with science now came in more\nstrongly than ever. This effort had been made long before: as we have\nseen, it had begun to show itself decidedly as soon as the influence\nof the Baconian philosophy was felt. Le Clerc suggested that the shock\ncaused by the sight of fire from heaven killed Lot's wife instantly and\nmade her body rigid as a statue. Eichhorn suggested that she fell into a\nstream of melted bitumen. Michaelis suggested that her relatives raised\na monument of salt rock to her memory. Friedrichs suggested that she\nfell into the sea and that the salt stiffened around her clothing, thus\nmaking a statue of her. Some claimed that a shower of sulphur came\ndown upon her, and that the word which has been translated \"salt\" could\npossibly be translated \"sulphur.\" Others hinted that the salt by its\nantiseptic qualities preserved her body as a mummy. De Saulcy, as we\nhave seen, thought that a piece of salt rock fell upon her, and very\nrecently Principal Dawson has ventured the explanation that a flood of\nsalt mud coming from a volcano incrusted her.\n\nBut theologians themselves were the first to show the inadequacy of\nthese explanations. The more rationalistic pointed out the fact that\nthey were contrary to the sacred text: Von Bohlen, an eminent professor\nat Konigsberg, in his sturdy German honesty, declared that the salt\npillar gave rise to the story, and compared the pillar of salt causing\nthis transformation legend to the rock in Greek mythology which gave\nrise to the transformation legend of Niobe.\n\nOn the other hand, the more severely orthodox protested against such\nattempts to explain away the clear statements of Holy Writ. Dom Calmet,\nwhile presenting many of these explanations made as early as his time,\ngives us to understand that nearly all theologians adhered to the idea\nthat Lot's wife was instantly and really changed into salt; and in\nour own time, as we shall presently see, have come some very vigorous\nprotests.\n\nSimilar attempts were made to explain the other ancient legends\nregarding the Dead Sea. One of the most recent of these is that the\ncities of the plain, having been built with blocks of bituminous rock,\nwere set on fire by lightning, a contemporary earthquake helping on the\nwork. Still another is that accumulations of petroleum and inflammable\ngas escaped through a fissure, took fire, and so produced the\ncatastrophe.(443)\n\n\n     (443) For Kranzel, see his Reise nach Jerusalem, etc. For Schegg, see\nhis Gedenkbuch einer Pilgerreise, etc., 1867, chap. xxiv. For Palmer,\nsee his Desert of the Exodus, vol. ii, pp. 478, 479. For the various\ncompromises, see works already cited, passim. For Von Bohlen, see\nhis Genesis, Konigsberg, 1835, pp. 200-213. For Calmet, see his\nDictionarium, etc, Venet., 1766. For very recent compromises, see J. W.\nDawson and Dr. Cunningham Geikie in works cited.\n\n\nThe revolt against such efforts to RECONCILE scientific fact with myth\nand legend had become very evident about the middle of the nineteenth\ncentury. In 1851 and 1852 Van de Velde made his journey. He was a most\ndevout man, but he confessed that the volcanic action at the Dead Sea\nmust have been far earlier than the catastrophe mentioned in our sacred\nbooks, and that \"the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to\ndo with this.\" A few years later an eminent dignitary of the English\nChurch, Canon Tristram, doctor of divinity and fellow of the Royal\nSociety, who had explored the Holy Land thoroughly, after some\ngeneralities about miracles, gave up the whole attempt to make science\nagree with the myths, and used these words: \"It has been frequently\nassumed that the district of Usdum and its sister cities was the result\nof some tremendous geological catastrophe.... Now, careful examination by\ncompetent geologists, such as Monsieur Lartet and others, has shown that\nthe whole district has assumed its present shape slowly and gradually\nthrough a succession of ages, and that its peculiar phenomena are\nsimilar to those of other lakes.\" So sank from view the whole mass\nof Dead Sea myths and legends, and science gained a victory both for\ngeology and comparative mythology.\n\nAs a protest against this sort of rationalism appeared in 1876 an\nedition of Monseigneur Mislin's work on The Holy Places. In order to\ngive weight to the book, it was prefaced by letters from Pope Pius IX\nand sundry high ecclesiastics--and from Alexandre Dumas! His hatred\nof Protestant missionaries in the East is phenomenal: he calls them\n\"bagmen,\" ascribes all mischief and infamy to them, and his hatred is\nonly exceeded by his credulity. He cites all the arguments in favour of\nthe salt statue at Usdum as the identical one into which Lot's wife was\nchanged, adds some of his own, and presents her as \"a type of doubt and\nheresy.\" With the proverbial facility of dogmatists in translating any\nword of a dead language into anything that suits their purpose, he says\nthat the word in the nineteenth chapter of Genesis which is translated\n\"statue\" or \"pillar,\" may be translated \"eternal monument\"; he is\nespecially severe on poor Monsieur De Saulcy for thinking that Lot's\nwife was killed by the falling of a piece of salt rock; and he actually\nboasts that it was he who caused De Saulcy, a member of the French\nInstitute, to suppress the obnoxious passage in a later edition.\n\nBetween 1870 and 1880 came two killing blows at the older theories, and\nthey were dealt by two American scholars of the highest character.\nFirst of these may be mentioned Dr. Philip Schaff, a professor in the\nPresbyterian Theological Seminary at New York, who published his travels\nin 1877. In a high degree he united the scientific with the religious\nspirit, but the trait which made him especially fit for dealing with\nthis subject was his straightforward German honesty. He tells the simple\ntruth regarding the pillar of salt, so far as its physical origin and\ncharacteristics are concerned, and leaves his reader to draw the natural\ninference as to its relation to the myth. With the fate of Dr. Robertson\nSmith in Scotland and Dr. Woodrow in South Carolina before him--both\nrecently driven from their professorships for truth-telling--Dr. Schaff\ndeserves honour for telling as much as he does.\n\nSimilar in effect, and even more bold in statement, were the travels of\nthe Rev. Henry Osborn, published in 1878. In a truly scientific spirit\nhe calls attention to the similarity of the Dead Sea, with the river\nJordan, to sundry other lake and river systems; points out the endless\nvariations between writers describing the salt formations at Usdum;\naccounts rationally for these variations, and quotes from Dr. Anderson's\nreport, saying, \"From the soluble nature of the salt and the crumbling\nlooseness of the marl, it may well be imagined that, while some of these\nneedles are in the process of formation, others are being washed away.\"\n\nThus came out, little by little, the truth regarding the Dead Sea myths,\nand especially the salt pillar at Usdum; but the final truth remained to\nbe told in the Church, and now one of the purest men and truest divines\nof this century told it. Arthur Stanley, Dean of Westminster, visiting\nthe country and thoroughly exploring it, allowed that the physical\nfeatures of the Dead Sea and its shores suggested the myths and legends,\nand he sums up the whole as follows: \"A great mass of legends and\nexaggerations, partly the cause and partly the result of the old belief\nthat the cities were buried under the Dead Sea, has been gradually\nremoved in recent years.\"\n\nSo, too, about the same time, Dr. Conrad Furrer, pastor of the great\nchurch of St. Peter at Zurich, gave to the world a book of travels,\nreverent and thoughtful, and in this honestly acknowledged that the\nneedles of salt at the southern end of the Dead Sea \"in primitive times\ngave rise to the tradition that Lot's wife was transformed into a statue\nof salt.\" Thus was the mythical character of this story at last openly\nconfessed by Leading churchmen on both continents.\n\nPlain statements like these from such sources left the high theological\nposition more difficult than ever, and now a new compromise was\nattempted. As the Siberian mother tried to save her best-beloved child\nfrom the pursuing wolves by throwing over to them her less favoured\nchildren, so an effort was now made in a leading commentary to save the\nlegends of the valley of Siddim and the miraculous destruction of the\ncities by throwing overboard the legend of Lot's wife.(444)\n\n\n     (444) For Mislin, see his Les Saints Lieux, Paris, vol. iii, pp.\n290-293, especially note at foot of page 292. For Schaff, see his\nThrough Bible Lands, especially chapter xxix; see also Rev. H. S.\nOsborn, M. A., The Holy Land, pp. 267 et seq.; also Stanley's Sinai and\nPalestine, London, 1887, especially pp. 290-293. For Furrer, see his\nEn Palestine, Geneva, 1886, vol. i, p.246. For the attempt to save\none legend by throwing overboard the other, see Keil and Delitzsch,\nBiblischer Commentar uber das Alte Testament, vol. i, pp. 155, 156. For\nVan de Velde, see his Syria and Palestine, vol. ii, p. 120.\n\n\nAn amusing result has followed this development of opinion. As we have\nalready seen, traveller after traveller, Catholic and Protestant, now\nvisits the Dead Sea, and hardly one of them follows the New Testament\ninjunction to \"remember Lot's wife.\" Nearly every one of them seems to\nthink it best to forget her. Of the great mass of pious legends they are\nshy enough, but that of Lot's wife, as a rule, they seem never to\nhave heard of, and if they do allude to it they simply cover the whole\nsubject with a haze of pious rhetoric.(445)\n\n\n     (445) The only notice of the Lot's wife legend in the editions of\nRobinson at my command is a very curious one by Leopold von Buch, the\neminent geologist. Robinson, with a fearlessness which does him credit,\nconsulted Von Buch, who in his answer was evidently inclined to make\nthings easier for Robinson by hinting that Lot was so much struck by\nthe salt formations that HE IMAGINED that his wife had been changed into\nsalt. On this theory, Robinson makes no comment. See Robinson, Biblical\nResearches in Palestine, etc., London, 1841, vol. ii, p. 674.\n\n\nNaturally, under this state of things, there has followed the usual\nattempt to throw off from Christendom the responsibility of the old\nbelief, and in 1887 came a curious effort of this sort. In that year\nappeared the Rev. Dr. Cunningham Geikie's valuable work on The Holy Land\nand the Bible. In it he makes the following statement as to the\nsalt formation at Usdum: \"Here and there, hardened portions of salt\nwithstanding the water, while all around them melts and wears off, rise\nup isolated pillars, one of which bears among the Arabs the name of\n'Lot's wife.'\"\n\nIn the light of the previous history, there is something at once\npathetic and comical in this attempt to throw the myth upon the\nshoulders of the poor Arabs. The myth was not originated by Mohammedans;\nit appears, as we have seen, first among the Jews, and, I need hardly\nremind the reader, comes out in the Book of Wisdom and in Josephus, and\nhas been steadily maintained by fathers, martyrs, and doctors of the\nChurch, by at least one pope, and by innumerable bishops, priests,\nmonks, commentators, and travellers, Catholic and Protestant, ever\nsince. In thus throwing the responsibility of the myth upon the Arabs\nDr. Geikie appears to show both the \"perfervid genius\" of his countrymen\nand their incapacity to recognise a joke.\n\nNor is he more happy in his rationalistic explanations of the whole mass\nof myths. He supposes a terrific storm, in which the lightning kindled\nthe combustible materials of the cities, aided perhaps by an earthquake;\nbut this shows a disposition to break away from the exact statements of\nthe sacred books which would have been most severely condemned by the\nuniversal Church during at least eighteen hundred years of its history.\nNor would the explanations of Sir William Dawson have fared any better:\nit is very doubtful whether either of them could escape unscathed today\nfrom a synod of the Free Church of Scotland, or of any of the leading\northodox bodies in the Southern States of the American Union.(446)\n\n\n     (446) For these most recent explanations, see Rev. Cunningham Geikie, D.\nD., in work cited; also Sir J. W. Dawson, Egypt and Syria, published\nby the Religious Tract Society, 1887, pp. 125, 126; see also Dawson's\narticle in The Expositor for January, 1886.\n\n\nHow unsatisfactory all such rationalism must be to a truly theological\nmind is seen not only in the dealings with Prof. Robertson Smith in\nScotland and Prof. Woodrow in South Carolina, but most clearly in a book\npublished in 1886 by Monseigneur Haussmann de Wandelburg. Among other\nthings, the author was Prelate of the Pope's House-hold, a Mitred Abbot,\nCanon of the Holy Sepulchre, and a Doctor of Theology of the Pontifical\nUniversity at Rome, and his work is introduced by approving letters from\nPope Leo XIII and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Monseigneur de Wandelburg\nscorns the idea that the salt column at Usdum is not the statue of Lot's\nwife; he points out not only the danger of yielding this evidence\nof miracle to rationalism, but the fact that the divinely inspired\nauthority of the Book of Wisdom, written, at the latest, two hundred and\nfifty years before Christ, distinctly refers to it. He summons Josephus\nas a witness. He dwells on the fact that St. Clement of Rome, Irenaeus,\nHegesippus, and St. Cyril, \"who as Bishop of Jerusalem must have known\nbetter than any other person what existed in Palestine,\" with St.\nJerome, St. Chrysostom, and a multitude of others, attest, as a matter\nof their own knowledge or of popular notoriety, that the remains of\nLot's wife really existed in their time in the form of a column of salt;\nand he points triumphantly to the fact that Lieutenant Lynch found this\nvery column. In the presence of such a continuous line of witnesses,\nsome of them considered as divinely inspired, and all of them greatly\nrevered--a line extending through thirty-seven hundred years--he\ncondemns most vigorously all those who do not believe that the pillar\nof salt now at Usdum is identical with the wife of Lot, and stigmatizes\nthem as people who \"do not wish to believe the truth of the Word of\nGod.\"\n\nHis ignorance of many of the simplest facts bearing upon the legend is\nvery striking, yet he does not hesitate to speak of men who know far\nmore and have thought far more upon the subject as \"grossly ignorant.\"\nThe most curious feature in his ignorance is the fact that he is\nutterly unaware of the annual changes in the salt statue. He is entirely\nignorant of such facts as that the priest Gabriel Giraudet in the\nsixteenth century found the statue lying down; that the monk Zwinner\nfound it in the seventeenth century standing, and accompanied by a dog\nalso transformed into salt; that Prince Radziwill found no statue at\nall; that the pious Vincent Briemle in the eighteenth century found\nthe monument renewing itself; that about the middle of the nineteenth\ncentury Lynch found it in the shape of a tower or column forty feet\nhigh; that within two years afterward De Saulcy found it washed into the\nform of a spire; that a year later Van de Velde found it utterly washed\naway; and that a few years later Palmer found it \"a statue bearing a\nstriking resemblance to an Arab woman with a child in her arms.\" So\nended the last great demonstration, thus far, on the side of sacred\nscience--the last retreating shot from the theological rear guard.\n\nIt is but just to say that a very great share in the honour of the\nvictory of science in this field is due to men trained as theologians.\nIt would naturally be so, since few others have devoted themselves to\ndirect labour in it; yet great honour is none the less due to such men\nas Reland, Mariti, Smith, Robinson, Stanley, Tristram, and Schat.\n\nThey have rendered even a greater service to religion than to science,\nfor they have made a beginning, at least, of doing away with that\nenforced belief in myths as history which has become a most serious\ndanger to Christianity.\n\nFor the worst enemy of Christianity could wish nothing more than that\nits main Leaders should prove that it can not be adopted save by those\nwho accept, as historical, statements which unbiased men throughout the\nworld know to be mythical. The result of such a demonstration would only\nbe more and more to make thinking people inside the Church dissemblers,\nand thinking people outside, scoffers. Far better is it to welcome the\naid of science, in the conviction that all truth is one, and, in the\nlight of this truth, to allow theology and science to work together in\nthe steady evolution of religion and morality.\n\nThe revelations made by the sciences which most directly deal with the\nhistory of man all converge in the truth that during the earlier stages\nof this evolution moral and spiritual teachings must be inclosed in\nmyth, legend, and parable. \"The Master\" felt this when he gave to the\npoor peasants about him, and so to the world, his simple and beautiful\nillustrations. In making this truth clear, science will give to religion\nfar more than it will take away, for it will throw new life and light\ninto all sacred literature.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.  FROM LEVITICUS TO POLITICAL ECONOMY\n\n\n\n\nI. ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF HOSTILITY TO LOANS AT INTEREST.\n\n\nAmong questions on which the supporters of right reason in political\nand social science have only conquered theological opposition after\ncenturies of war, is the taking of interest on loans. In hardly any\nstruggle has rigid adherence to the letter of our sacred books been more\nprolonged and injurious.\n\nCertainly, if the criterion of truth, as regards any doctrine, be that\nof St. Vincent of Lerins--that it has been held in the Church \"always,\neverywhere, and by all\"--then on no point may a Christian of these days\nbe more sure than that every savings institution, every loan and trust\ncompany, every bank, every loan of capital by an individual, every means\nby which accumulated capital has been lawfully lent even at the most\nmoderate interest, to make men workers rather than paupers, is based on\ndeadly sin.\n\nThe early evolution of the belief that taking interest for money is\nsinful presents a curious working together of metaphysical, theological,\nand humanitarian ideas.\n\nIn the main centre of ancient Greek civilization, the loaning of money\nat interest came to be accepted at an early period as a condition of\nproductive industry, and no legal restriction was imposed. In Rome there\nwas a long process of development: the greed of creditors in early times\nled to laws against the taking of interest; but, though these lasted\nlong, that strong practical sense which gave Rome the empire of\nthe world substituted finally, for this absolute prohibition, the\nestablishment of rates by law. Yet many of the leading Greek and\nRoman thinkers opposed this practical settlement of the question, and,\nforemost of all, Aristotle. In a metaphysical way he declared that money\nis by nature \"barren\"; that the birth of money from money is therefore\n\"unnatural\"; and hence that the taking of interest is to be censured\nand hated. Plato, Plutarch, both the Catos, Cicero, Seneca, and\nvarious other leaders of ancient thought, arrived at much the same\nconclusion--sometimes from sympathy with oppressed debtors; sometimes\nfrom dislike of usurers; sometimes from simple contempt of trade.\n\nFrom these sources there came into the early Church the germ of a\ntheological theory upon the subject.\n\nBut far greater was the stream of influence from the Jewish and\nChristian sacred books. In the Old Testament stood various texts\ncondemning usury--the term usury meaning any taking of interest: the law\nof Moses, while it allowed usury in dealing with strangers, forbade it\nin dealing with Jews. In the New Testament, in the Sermon on the Mount,\nas given by St. Luke, stood the text \"Lend, hoping for nothing again.\"\nThese texts seemed to harmonize with the most beautiful characteristic\nof primitive Christianity; its tender care for the poor and oppressed:\nhence we find, from the earliest period, the whole weight of the Church\nbrought to bear against the taking of interest for money.(448)\n\n\n     (448) On the general allowance of interest for money in Greece, even at\nhigh rates, see Bockh, Public Economy of the Athenians, translated by\nLamb, Boston, 1857, especially chaps. xxii, xxiii, and xxiv of book i.\nFor a view of usury taken by Aristotle, see his Politics and Economics,\ntranslated by Walford, p. 27; also Grote, History of Greece, vol. iii,\nchap. xi. For summary of opinions in Greece and Rome, and their relation\nto Christian thought, see Bohm-Bawerk, Capital and Interest, translated\nby Smart, London, 1890, chap. i. For a very full list of scripture texts\nagainst the taking of interest, see Pearson, The Theories on Usury\nin Europe, 1100-1400, Cambridge (England), 1876, p. 6. The texts most\nfrequently cited were Leviticus xxv, 36, 37; Deuteronomy xxiii, 19 and\n26; Psalms, xv, 5; Ezekiel xviii, 8 and 17; St. Luke, vi, 35. For a\ncurious modern use of them, see D. S. Dickinson's speech in the State of\nNew York, in vol. i of his collected writings. See also Lecky, History\nof Rationalism in Europe, vol. ii, chap. vi; and above all, as the most\nrecent historical summary by a leading historian of political economy,\nBohm-Bawerk, as above.\n\n\nThe great fathers of the Eastern Church, and among them St. Basil,\nSt. Chrysostom, and St. Gregory of Nyssa,--the fathers of the Western\nChurch, and among them Tertullian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and St.\nJerome, joined most earnestly in this condemnation. St. Basil denounces\nmoney at interest as a \"fecund monster,\" and says, \"The divine law\ndeclares expressly, 'Thou shalt not lend on usury to thy brother or thy\nneighbour.'\" St. Gregory of Nyssa calls down on him who lends money at\ninterest the vengeance of the Almighty. St. Chrysostom says: \"What can\nbe more unreasonable than to sow without land, without rain, without\nploughs? All those who give themselves up to this damnable culture\nshall reap only tares. Let us cut off these monstrous births of gold and\nsilver; let us stop this execrable fecundity.\"\n\nLactantius called the taking of interest \"robbery.\" St. Ambrose declared\nit as bad as murder, St. Jerome threw the argument into the form of a\ndilemma, which was used as a weapon against money-lenders for centuries.\nPope Leo the Great solemnly adjudged it a sin worthy of severe\npunishment.(449)\n\n\n     (449) For St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nyssa, see French translation\nof their diatribes in Homelies contre les Usuriers, Paris, Hachette,\n1861-'62, especially p. 30 of St. Basil. For some doubtful reservations\nby St. Augustine, see Murray, History of Usury. For St. Ambrose, see De\nOfficiis, lib. iii, cap. ii, in Migne, Patr. Lat., vol. xvi; also the De\nTobia, in Migne, vol. xiv. For St. Augustine, see De Bapt. contr Donat.,\nlib. iv, cap. ix, in Migne, vol. xliii. For Lactantius, see his Opera,\nLeyden, 1660, p. 608. For Cyprian, see his Testimonies against the Jews,\ntranslated by Wallis, book iii, article 48. For St. Jerome, see his Com.\nin Ezekiel, xviii, 8, in Migne, vol. xxv, pp. 170 et seq. For Leo the\nGreat, see his letter to the bishops of various provinces of Italy,\ncited in the Jus. Can., cap. vii, can. xiv, qu. 4. For very fair\nstatements of the attitude of the fathers on this question, see Addis\nand Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, London, 1884, and Smith and Cheetham,\nDictionary of Christian Antiquities, London, 1875-'80; in each, under\narticle Usury.\n\n\nThis unanimity of the fathers of the Church brought about a\ncrystallization of hostility to interest-bearing loans into numberless\ndecrees of popes and councils and kings and legislatures throughout\nChristendom during more than fifteen hundred years, and the canon law\nwas shaped in accordance with these. At first these were more especially\ndirected against the clergy, but we soon find them extending to the\nlaity. These prohibitions were enforced by the Council of Arles in 314,\nand a modern Church apologist insists that every great assembly of the\nChurch, from the Council of Elvira in 306 to that of Vienne in 1311,\ninclusive, solemnly condemned lending money at interest. The greatest\nrulers under the sway of the Church--Justinian, in the Empire of the\nEast; Charlemagne, in the Empire of the West; Alfred, in England; St.\nLouis, in France--yielded fully to this dogma. In the ninth century\nAlfred went so far as to confiscate the estates of money-lenders,\ndenying them burial in Consecrated ground; and similar decrees were made\nin other parts of Europe. In the twelfth century the Greek Church seems\nto have relaxed its strictness somewhat, but the Roman Church grew\nmore severe. St. Anselm proved from the Scriptures that the taking of\ninterest is a breach of the Ten Commandments. Peter Lombard, in his\nSentences, made the taking of interest purely and simply theft. St.\nBernard, reviving religious earnestness in the Church, took the same\nview. In 1179 the Third Council of the Lateran decreed that impenitent\nmoney-lenders should be excluded from the altar, from absolution in the\nhour of death, and from Christian burial. Pope Urban III reiterated\nthe declaration that the passage in St. Luke forbade the taking of any\ninterest whatever. Pope Alexander III declared that the prohibition in\nthis matter could never be suspended by dispensation.\n\nIn the thirteenth century Pope Gregory IX dealt an especially severe\nblow at commerce by his declaration that even to advance on interest the\nmoney necessary in maritime trade was damnable usury; and this was fitly\nfollowed by Gregory X, who forbade Christian burial to those guilty of\nthis practice; the Council of Lyons meted out the same penalty. This\nidea was still more firmly fastened upon the world by the two greatest\nthinkers of the time: first, by St. Thomas Aquinas, who knit it into the\nmind of the Church by the use of the Scriptures and of Aristotle; and\nnext by Dante, who pictured money-lenders in one of the worst regions of\nhell.\n\nAbout the beginning of the fourteenth century the \"Subtile Doctor\" of\nthe Middle Ages, Duns Scotus, gave to the world an exquisite piece of\nreasoning in evasion of the accepted doctrine; but all to no purpose:\nthe Council of Vienne, presided over by Pope Clement V, declared that\nif any one \"shall pertinaciously presume to affirm that the taking of\ninterest for money is not a sin, we decree him to be a heretic, fit for\npunishment.\" This infallible utterance bound the dogma with additional\nforce on the conscience of the universal Church.\n\nNor was this a doctrine enforced by rulers only; the people were no less\nstrenuous. In 1390 the city authorities of London enacted that, \"if any\nperson shall lend or put into the hands of any person gold or silver\nto receive gain thereby, such person shall have the punishment for\nusurers.\" And in the same year the Commons prayed the king that the laws\nof London against usury might have the force of statutes throughout the\nrealm.\n\nIn the fifteenth century the Council of the Church at Salzburg excluded\nfrom communion and burial any who took interest for money, and this was\na very general rule throughout Germany.\n\nAn exception was, indeed, sometimes made: some canonists held that Jews\nmight be allowed to take interest, since they were to be damned in any\ncase, and their monopoly of money-lending might prevent Christians from\nlosing their souls by going into the business. Yet even the Jews were\nfrom time to time punished for the crime of usury; and, as regards\nChristians, punishment was bestowed on the dead as well as the\nliving--the bodies of dead money-lenders being here and there dug up and\ncast out of consecrated ground.\n\nThe popular preachers constantly declaimed against all who took\ninterest. The medieval anecdote books for pulpit use are especially full\non this point. Jacques de Vitry tells us that demons on one occasion\nfilled a dead money-lender's mouth with red-hot coins; Cesarius of\nHeisterbach declared that a toad was found thrusting a piece of money\ninto a dead usurer's heart; in another case, a devil was seen pouring\nmolten gold down a dead money-lender's throat.(450)\n\n\n     (450) For an enumeration of councils condemning the taking of interest\nfor money, see Liegeois, Essai sur l'Histoire et la Legislation de\nl'Usure, Paris, 1865, p. 78; also the Catholic Dictionary as above. For\ncurious additional details and sources regarding mediaeval horror of\nusurers, see Ducange, Glossarium, etc., article Caorcini. T he date 306,\nfor the Council of Elvira is that assigned by Hefele. For the decree\nof Alexander III, see citation from the Latin text in Lecky. For a\nlong catalogue of ecclesiastical and civil decrees against taking of\ninterest, see Petit, Traite de l'Usure, Paris, 1840. For the reasoning\nat the bottom of this, see Cunningham, Christian Opinion on Usury,\nLondon, 1884. For the Salzburg decrees, see Zillner, Salzburgusche\nCulturgeschichte, p. 232; and for Germany generally, see Neumann,\nGeschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland, Halle, 1865, especially pp. 22 et\nseq; also Roscher, National-Oeconomis. For effect of mistranslation\nof the passage of Luke in the Vulgate, see Dollinger, p. 170, and\nespecially pp. 224, 225 For the capitularies of Charlemagne against\nusury, see Liegeois, p. 77. For Gregory X and the Council of Lyons, see\nSextus Decretalium liber, pp. 669 et. seq. For Peter Lombard, see his\nLib. Sententiarum, III, dist. xxxvii, 3. For St. Thomas Aquinas, see his\nworks, Migne, vol. iii, Paris 1889, quaestio 78, pp. 587 et seq., citing\nthe Scriptures and Aristotle, and especially developing Aristotle's\nmetaphysical idea regarding the \"barrenness\" of money. For a very good\nsummary of St. Thomas's ideas, see Pearson. pp. 30 et seq. For Dante,\nsee in canto xi of the Inferno a revelation of the amazing depth of the\nhostility to the taking of interest. For the London law of 1390 and the\npetition to the king, see Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and\nCommerce, pp. 210, 326; also the Abridgment of the Records in the Tower\nof London, p. 339. For the theory that Jews, being damned already, might\nbe allowed to practice usury, see Liegeois, Histoire de l'Usure, p. 82.\nFor St. Bernard's view, see Epist. CCCLXIII, in Migne, vol. clxxxii,\np. 567. For ideas and anecdotes for preachers' use, see Joannes a San\nGeminiano, Summa de Exemplis, Antwerp, 1629, fol. 493, a; also the\nedition of Venice, 1584, ff. 132, 159; but especially, for multitudes\nof examples, see the Exempla of Jacques de Vitry, edited by Prof. T.\nF. Crane, of Cornell University, London, 1890, pp. 203 et seq. For the\ncanon law in regard to interest, see a long line of authorities cited in\nDie Wucherfrage, St. Louis, 1869, pp. 92 et seq., and especially Decret.\nGregor., lib v, lit. 19, cap. iii, and Clementin., lib. v, lit. 5, sec.\n2; see also the Corpus Juris Canonici, Paris, 1618, pp. 227, 228.\nFor the position of the English Church, see Gibson's Corpus Juris\nEcclesiastici Anglicani, pp. 1070, 1071, 1106.\n\n\nThis theological hostility to the taking of interest was imbedded firmly\nin the canon law. Again and again it defined usury to be the taking of\nanything of value beyond the exact original amount of a loan; and\nunder sanction of the universal Church it denounced this as a crime\nand declared all persons defending it to be guilty of heresy. What this\nmeant the world knows but too well.\n\nThe whole evolution of European civilization was greatly hindered by\nthis conscientious policy. Money could only be loaned in most countries\nat the risk of incurring odium in this world and damnation in the\nnext; hence there was but little capital and few lenders. The rates of\ninterest became at times enormous; as high as forty per cent in England,\nand ten per cent a month in Italy and Spain. Commerce, manufactures, and\ngeneral enterprise were dwarfed, while pauperism flourished.\n\nYet worse than these were the moral results. Doing what one holds to be\nevil is only second in bad consequences to doing what is really evil;\nhence, all lending and borrowing, even for the most legitimate purposes\nand at the most reasonable rates, tended to debase both borrower and\nlender. The prohibition of lending at interest in continental Europe\npromoted luxury and discouraged economy; the rich, who were not\nengaged in business, finding no easy way of employing their incomes\nproductively, spent them largely in ostentation and riotous living. One\nevil effect is felt in all parts of the world to this hour. The Jews,\nso acute in intellect and strong in will, were virtually drawn or driven\nout of all other industries or professions by the theory that their\nrace, being accursed, was only fitted for the abhorred profession of\nmoney-lending.(451)\n\n\n     (451) For evil economic results, and especially for the rise of the rate\nof interest in England and elsewhere at times to forty per cent, see\nCunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce, Cambridge, 1890,\np. 189; and for its rising to ten per cent a month, see Bedarride, Les\nJuifs en France, en Italie, at en Espagne, p. 220; see also Hallam's\nMiddle Ages, London, 1853, pp. 401, 402. For the evil moral effects of\nthe Church doctrine against taking interest, see Montesquieu, Esprit\ndes Lois, lib. xxi, chap. xx; see also Sismondi, cited in Lecky. For\nthe trifling with conscience, distinction between \"consumptibles\" and\n\"fungibles,\" \"possessio\" and \"dominium,\" etc., see Ashley, English\nEconomic History, New York, pp. 152, 153; see also Leopold Delisle,\nEtudes, pp. 198, 468. For the effects of these doctrines on the Jews,\nsee Milman, History of the Jews, vol. iii, p. 179; also Wellhausen,\nHistory of Israel, London, 1885, p. 546; also Beugnot, Les Juifs\nd'Occident, Paris, 1824, pt. 2, p. 114 (on driving Jews out of other\nindustries than money-lending). For a noted mediaeval evasion of the\nChurch rules against usury, see Peruzzi, Storia del Commercio e dei\nBanchieri di Firenze, Florence, 1868, pp. 172, 173.\n\n\nThese evils were so manifest, when trade began to revive throughout\nEurope in the fifteenth century, that most earnest exertions were put\nforth to induce the Church to change its position.\n\nThe first important effort of this kind was made by John Gerson. His\ngeneral learning made him Chancellor of the University of Paris; his\nsacred learning made him the leading orator at the Council of Constance;\nhis piety led men to attribute to him The Imitation of Christ. Shaking\noff theological shackles, he declared, \"Better is it to lend money at\nreasonable interest, and thus to give aid to the poor, than to see them\nreduced by poverty to steal, waste their goods, and sell at a low price\ntheir personal and real property.\"\n\nBut this idea was at once buried beneath citations from the Scriptures,\nthe fathers, councils, popes, and the canon law. Even in the most active\ncountries there seemed to be no hope. In England, under Henry VII,\nCardinal Morton, the lord chancellor, addressed Parliament, asking it to\ntake into consideration loans of money at interest. The result was a law\nwhich imposed on lenders at interest a fine of a hundred pounds besides\nthe annulment of the loan; and, to show that there was an offence\nagainst religion involved, there was added a clause \"reserving to the\nChurch, notwithstanding this punishment, the correction of their souls\naccording to the laws of the same.\"\n\nSimilar enactments were made by civil authority in various parts of\nEurope; and just when the trade, commerce, and manufactures of the\nmodern epoch had received an immense impulse from the great series of\nvoyages of discovery by such men as Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Magellan,\nand the Cabots, this barrier against enterprise was strengthened by a\ndecree from no less enlightened a pontiff than Leo X.\n\nThe popular feeling warranted such decrees. As late as the end of\nthe Middle Ages we find the people of Piacenza dragging the body of a\nmoney-lender out of his grave in consecrated ground and throwing it into\nthe river Po, in order to stop a prolonged rainstorm; and outbreaks of\nthe same spirit were frequent in other countries. (452)\n\n\n     (452) For Gerson's argument favouring a reasonable rate of interest, see\nCoquelin and Guillaumin, Dictionnaire, article Interet. For the renewed\nopposition to the taking of interest in England, see Craik, History of\nBritish Commerce, chap. vi. The statute cited is 3 Henry VII, chap. vi;\nit is found in Gibson's Corpus Juris Eccles. Anglic., p. 1071. For\nthe adverse decree of Leo X, see Liegeois, p. 76. See also Lecky,\nRationalism, vol. ii. For the dragging out of the usurer's body at\nPiacenza, see Burckhardt, The Renaissance in Italy, London, 1878, vol.\nii, p. 339. For public opinion of similar strength on this subject in\nEngland, see Cunningham, p. 239; also Pike, History of Crime in England,\nvol. i, pp. 127, 193. For good general observations on the same, see\nStephen, History of Criminal Law in England, London, 1883, vol. iii, pp.\n195-197. For usury laws in Castile and Aragon, see Bedarride, pp.\n191, 192. For exceedingly valuable details as to the attitude of the\nmediaeval Church, see Leopold Delisle, Etudes sur la Classe Agricole en\nNormandie au Moyen Age, Evreux, 1851, pp. 200 et seq., also p. 468. For\npenalties in France, see Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, in the Rolls\nSeries, especially vol. iii, pp. 191, 192. For a curious evasion,\nsanctioned by Popes Martin V and Calixtus III when Church corporations\nbecame money-lenders, see H. C. Lea on The Ecclesiastical Treatment of\nUsury, in the Yale Review for February, 1894. For a detailed development\nof interesting subordinate points, see Ashley, Introduction to English\nEconomic History and Theory, vol. ii, ch, vi.\n\n\nAnother mode of obtaining relief was tried. Subtle theologians devised\nevasions of various sorts. Two among these inventions of the schoolmen\nobtained much notoriety.\n\nThe first was the doctrine of \"damnum emergens\": if a lender suffered\nloss by the failure of the borrower to return a loan at a date named,\ncompensation might be made. Thus it was that, if the nominal date of\npayment was made to follow quickly after the real date of the loan,\nthe compensation for the anticipated delay in payment had a very strong\nresemblance to interest. Equally cogent was the doctrine of \"lucrum\ncessans\": if a man, in order to lend money, was obliged to diminish his\nincome from productive enterprises, it was claimed that he might receive\nin return, in addition to his money, an amount exactly equal to this\ndiminution in his income.\n\nBut such evasions were looked upon with little favour by the great body\nof theologians, and the name of St. Thomas Aquinas was triumphantly\ncited against them.\n\nOpposition on scriptural grounds to the taking of interest was not\nconfined to the older Church. Protestantism was led by Luther and\nseveral of his associates into the same line of thought and practice.\nSaid Luther. \"To exchange anything with any one and gain by the exchange\nis not to do a charity; but to steal. Every usurer is a thief worthy\nof the gibbet. I call those usurers who lend money at five or six per\ncent.\" But it is only just to say that at a later period Luther took\na much more moderate view. Melanchthon, defining usury as any interest\nwhatever, condemned it again and again; and the Goldberg Catechism of\n1558, for which he wrote a preface and recommendation, declares every\nperson taking interest for money a thief. From generation to generation\nthis doctrine was upheld by the more eminent divines of the Lutheran\nChurch in all parts of Germany. The English reformers showed the same\nhostility to interest-bearing loans. Under Henry VIII the law of Henry\nVII against taking interest had been modified for the better; but the\nrevival of religious feeling under Edward VI caused in 1552 the passage\nof the \"Bill of Usury.\" In this it is said, \"Forasmuch as usury is\nby the word of God utterly prohibited, as a vice most odious and\ndetestable, as in divers places of the Holy Scriptures it is evident to\nbe seen, which thing by no godly teachings and persuasions can sink into\nthe hearts of divers greedy, uncharitable, and covetous persons of\nthis realm, nor yet, by any terrible threatenings of God's wrath and\nvengeance,\" etc., it is enacted that whosoever shall thereafter lend\nmoney \"for any manner of usury, increase, lucre, gain, or interest, to\nbe had, received, or hoped for,\" shall forfeit principal and interest,\nand suffer imprisonment and fine at the king's pleasure.(453)\n\n\n     (453) For Luther's views, see his sermon, Von dem Wucher, Wittenberg,\n1519; also the Table Talk, cited in Coquelin and Guillaumin, article\nInteret. For the later, more moderate views of Luther, Melanchthon, and\nZwingli, making a compromise with the needs of society, see Bohm-Bawerk,\np. 27, citing Wiskemann. For Melanchthon and a long line of the most\neminent Lutheran divines who have denounced the taking of interest, see\nDie Wucherfrage, St. Louis, 1869, pp. 94 et seq. For the law against\nusury under Edward VI, see Cobbett's Parliamentary History, vol. i, p.\n596; see also Craik, History of British Commerce, chap. vi.\n\n\nBut, most fortunately, it happened that Calvin, though at times\nstumbling over the usual texts against the taking of interest for money,\nturned finally in the right direction. He cut through the metaphysical\narguments of Aristotle, and characterized the subtleties devised to\nevade the Scriptures as \"a childish game with God.\" In place of\nthese subtleties there was developed among Protestants a serviceable\nfiction--the statement that usury means ILLEGAL OR OPPRESSIVE INTEREST.\nUnder the action of this fiction, commerce and trade revived rapidly\nin Protestant countries, though with occasional checks from exact\ninterpreters of Scripture. At the same period in France, the great\nProtestant jurist Dumoulin brought all his legal learning and skill in\ncasuistry to bear on the same side. A certain ferretlike acuteness\nand litheness seem to have enabled him to hunt down the opponents of\ninterest-taking through the most tortuous arguments of scholasticism.\n\nIn England the struggle went on with varying fortune; statesmen on one\nside, and theologians on the other. We have seen how, under Henry\nVIII, interest was allowed at a fixed rate, and how, the development of\nEnglish Protestantism having at first strengthened the old theological\nview, there was, under Edward VI, a temporarily successful attempt to\nforbid the taking of interest by law.\n\nThe Puritans, dwelling on Old Testament texts, continued for a\nconsiderable time especially hostile to the taking of any interest.\nHenry Smith, a noted preacher, thundered from the pulpit of St. Clement\nDanes in London against \"the evasions of Scripture\" which permitted men\nto lend money on interest at all. In answer to the contention that only\n\"biting\" usury was oppressive, Wilson, a noted upholder of the strict\ntheological view in political economy, declared: \"There is difference in\ndeed between the bite of a dogge and the bite of a flea, and yet, though\nthe flea doth lesse harm, yet the flea doth bite after hir kinde, yea,\nand draweth blood, too. But what a world this is, that men will make sin\nto be but a fleabite, when they see God's word directly against them!\"\n\nThe same view found strong upholders among contemporary English\nCatholics. One of the most eminent of these, Nicholas Sanders, revived\nvery vigorously the use of an old scholastic argument. He insisted\nthat \"man can not sell time,\" that time is not a human possession, but\nsomething which is given by God alone: he declared, \"Time was not of\nyour gift to your neighbour, but of God's gift to you both.\"\n\nIn the Parliament of the period, we find strong assertions of the old\nidea, with constant reference to Scripture and the fathers. In one\ndebate, Wilson cited from Ezekiel and other prophets and attributed to\nSt. Augustine the doctrine that \"to take but a cup of wine is usury\nand damnable.\" Fleetwood recalled the law of King Edward the Confessor,\nwhich submitted usurers to the ordeal.\n\nBut arguments of this sort had little influence upon Elizabeth and her\nstatesmen. Threats of damnation in the next world troubled them little\nif they could have their way in this. They re-established the practice\nof taking interest under restrictions, and this, in various forms,\nhas remained in England ever since. Most notable in this phase of the\nevolution of scientific doctrine in political economy at that period\nis the emergence of a recognised difference between USURY and\nINTEREST. Between these two words, which had so long been synonymous,\na distinction now appears: the former being construed to indicate\nOPPRESSIVE INTEREST, and the latter JUST RATES for the use of money.\nThis idea gradually sank into the popular mind of Protestant countries,\nand the scriptural texts no longer presented any difficulty to the\npeople at large, since there grew up a general belief that the word\n\"usury,\" as employed in Scripture, had ALWAYS meant exorbitant interest;\nand this in spite of the parable of the Talents. Still, that the old\nAristotelian quibble had not been entirely forgotten, is clearly seen by\nvarious passages in Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. But this line of\nreasoning seems to have received its quietus from Lord Bacon. He did\nnot, indeed, develop a strong and connected argument on the subject;\nbut he burst the bonds of Aristotle, and based interest for money upon\nnatural laws. How powerful the new current of thought was, is seen\nfrom the fact that James I, of all monarchs the most fettered by\nscholasticism and theology, sanctioned a statute dealing with interest\nfor money as absolutely necessary. Yet, even after this, the old idea\nasserted itself; for the bishops utterly refused to agree to the law\nallowing interest until a proviso was inserted that \"nothing in this law\ncontained shall be construed or expounded to allow the practice of usury\nin point of religion or conscience.\" The old view cropped out from time\nto time in various public declarations. Famous among these were the\nTreatise of Usury, published in 1612 by Dr. Fenton, who restated the\nold arguments with much force, and the Usury Condemned of John Blaxton,\npublished in 1634. Blaxton, who also was a clergyman, defined usury as\nthe taking of any interest whatever for money, citing in support of this\nview six archbishops and bishops and over thirty doctors of divinity in\nthe Anglican Church, some of their utterances being very violent and all\nof them running their roots down into texts of Scripture. Typical among\nthese is a sermon of Bishop Sands, in which he declares, regarding the\ntaking of interest: \"This canker hath corrupted all England; we shall\ndoe God and our country true service by taking away this evill; represse\nit by law, else the heavy hand of God hangeth over us and will strike\nus.\"\n\n\n\n\nII. RETREAT OF THE CHURCH, PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC.\n\nBut about the middle of the seventeenth century Sir Robert Filmer gave\nthis doctrine the heaviest blow it ever received in England. Taking up\nDr. Fenton's treatise, he answered it, and all works like it, in a way\nwhich, however unsuitable to this century, was admirably adapted to\nthat. He cites Scripture and chops logic after a masterly manner.\nCharacteristic is this declaration: \"St. Paul doth, with one breath,\nreckon up seventeen sins, and yet usury is none of them; but many\npreachers can not reckon up seven deadly sins, except they make usury\none of them.\" Filmer followed Fenton not only through his theology, but\nthrough his political economy, with such relentless keenness that the\nold doctrine seems to have been then and there practically worried out\nof existence, so far as England was concerned.\n\nDepartures from the strict scriptural doctrines regarding interest soon\nbecame frequent in Protestant countries, and they were followed up with\nespecial vigour in Holland. Various theologians in the Dutch Church\nattempted to assert the scriptural view by excluding bankers from\nthe holy communion; but the commercial vigour of the republic was too\nstrong: Salmasius led on the forces of right reason brilliantly, and by\nthe middle of the seventeenth century the question was settled rightly\nin that country. This work was aided, indeed, by a far greater man, Hugo\nGrotius; but here was shown the power of an established dogma. Great as\nGrotius was--and it may well be held that his book on War and Peace\nhas wrought more benefit to humanity than any other attributed to\nhuman authorship--he was, in the matter of interest for money, too much\nentangled in theological reasoning to do justice to his cause or\nto himself. He declared the prohibition of it to be scriptural, but\nresisted the doctrine of Aristotle, and allowed interest on certain\nnatural and practical grounds.\n\nIn Germany the struggle lasted longer. Of some little significance,\nperhaps, is the demand of Adam Contzen, in 1629, that lenders\nat interest should be punished as thieves; but by the end of the\nseventeenth century Puffendorf and Leibnitz had gained the victory.\n\nProtestantism, open as it was to the currents of modern thought, could\nnot long continue under the dominion of ideas unfavourable to economic\ndevelopment, and perhaps the most remarkable proof of this was presented\nearly in the eighteenth century in America, by no less strict a\ntheologian than Cotton Mather. In his Magnalia he argues against the\nwhole theological view with a boldness, acuteness, and good sense which\ncause us to wonder that this can be the same man who was so infatuated\nregarding witchcraft. After an argument so conclusive as his, there\ncould have been little left of the old anti-economic doctrine in New\nEngland.(454)\n\n\n     (454) For Calvin's views, see his letter published in the appendix to\nPearson's Theories on Usury. His position is well-stated in Bohm-Bawerk,\npp. 28 et seq., where citations are given. See also Economic Tracts,\nNo. IV, New York, 1881, pp. 34, 35; and for some serviceable Protestant\nfictions, see Cunningham, Christian Opinion on Usury, pp. 60, 61. For\nDumoulin (Molinaeus), see Bohm-Bawerk, as above, pp. 29 et seq. For\ndebates on usury in the British Parliament in Elizabeth's time, see\nCobbett, Parliamentary History, vol. i, pp 756 et seq. A striking\npassage in Shakespeare is found in the Merchant of Venice, Act I, scene\niii: \"If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not as to thy friend; for\nwhen did friendship take a breed for barren metal of his friend?\" For\nthe right direction taken by Lord Bacon, see Neumann, Geschichte des\nWuchers in Deutschland, Halle, 1864, pp. 497, 498. For Salmasius, see\nhis De Usuris, Leyden, 1638, and for others mentioned, see Bohm-Bawerk,\npp. 34 et seq.; also Lecky, vol. ii. p. 256. For the saving clause\ninderted by the bishops in the statute of James I, see the Corpus Juris\nEccles. Anglic., p. 1071; also Murray, History of Usury, Philadelphia,\n1866, p. 49.\n\nFor Blaxton, see his English Usurer, or Usury Condemned, by John\nBlaxton, Preacher of God's Word, London, 1634. Blaxton gives some of\nCalvin's earlier utterances against interest. For Bishop Sands;s sermon,\nsee p. 11. For Filmer, see his Quaestio Quodlibetica, London, 1652,\nreprinted in the Harleian Miscellany, vol x, pp. 105 et seq. For\nGrotius, see the De Jure Belli ac Pacis, lib. ii, cap. xii. For Cotton\nMather's argument, see the Magnalia, London, 1702, pp. 5, 52.\n\n\nBut while the retreat of the Protestant Church from the old doctrine\nregarding the taking of interest was henceforth easy, in the Catholic\nChurch it was far more difficult. Infallible popes and councils, with\nsaints, fathers, and doctors, had so constantly declared the taking of\nany interest at all to be contrary to Scripture, that the more exact\nthough less fortunate interpretation of the sacred text relating to\ninterest continued in Catholic countries. When it was attempted in\nFrance in the seventeenth century to argue that usury \"means oppressive\ninterest,\" the Theological Faculty of the Sorbonne declared that usury\nis the taking of any interest at all, no matter how little; and the\neighteenth chapter of Ezekiel was cited to clinch this argument.\n\nAnother attempt to ease the burden of industry and commerce was made by\ndeclaring that \"usury means interest demanded not as a matter of favour\nbut as a matter of right.\" This, too, was solemnly condemned by Pope\ninnocent XI.\n\nAgain an attempt was made to find a way out of the difficulty by\ndeclaring that \"usury is interest greater than the law allows.\" This,\ntoo, was condemned, and so also was the declaration that \"usury is\ninterest on loans not for a fixed time.\"\n\nStill the forces of right reason pressed on, and among them, in the\nseventeenth century, in France, was Richard Simon. He attempted to gloss\nover the declarations of Scripture against lending at interest, in an\nelaborate treatise, but was immediately confronted by Bossuet. Just as\nBossuet had mingled Scripture with astronomy and opposed the Copernican\ntheory, so now he mingled Scripture with political economy and denounced\nthe lending of money at interest. He called attention to the fact that\nthe Scriptures, the councils of the Church from the beginning, the\npopes, the fathers, had all interpreted the prohibition of \"usury\" to\nbe a prohibition of any lending at interest; and he demonstrated this\ninterpretation to be the true one. Simon was put to confusion and his\nbook condemned.\n\nThere was but too much reason for Bossuet's interpretation. There stood\nthe fact that the prohibition of one of the most simple and beneficial\nprinciples in political and economical science was affirmed, not only\nby the fathers, but by twenty-eight councils of the Church, six of them\ngeneral councils, and by seventeen popes, to say nothing of innumerable\ndoctors in theology and canon law. And these prohibitions by the Church\nhad been accepted as of divine origin by all obedient sons of the Church\nin the government of France. Such rulers as Charles the Bald in the\nninth century, and St. Louis in the thirteenth, had riveted this idea\ninto the civil law so firmly that it seemed impossible ever to detach\nit.(455)\n\n\n     (455) For the declaration of the Sorbonne in the seventeenth century\nagainst taking of interest, see Lecky, Rationalism, vol. ii, p. 248,\nnote. For the special condemnation by Innocent XI, see Viva, Damnatae\nTheses, Pavia, 1715, pp. 112-114. For consideration of various ways of\nescaping the difficulty regarding interest, see Lecky, Rationalism,\nvol. ii, pp. 249, 250. For Bousset's strong declaration against taking\ninterest, see his Oeuvres, Paris, 1845-'46, vol. i, p. 734, vol. vi,\np. 654, and vol. ix, p. 49 et seq. For the number of councils and popes\ncondemning usury, see Lecky, as above, vol. ii, p. 255, note, citing\nConcina.\n\n\nAs might well be expected, Italy was one of the countries in which\nthe theological theory regarding usury--lending at interest--was most\ngenerally asserted and assented to. Among the great number of Italian\ncanonists who supported the theory, two deserve especial mention, as\naffording a contrast to the practical manner in which the commercial\nItalians met the question.\n\nIn the sixteenth century, very famous among canonists was the learned\nBenedictine, Vilagut. In 1589 he published at Venice his great work\non usury, supporting with much learning and vigour the most extreme\ntheological consequences of the old doctrine. He defines usury as the\ntaking of anything beyond the original loan, and declares it mortal sin;\nhe advocates the denial to usurers of Christian burial, confession,\nthe sacraments, absolution, and connection with the universities; he\ndeclares that priests receiving offerings from usurers should refrain\nfrom exercising their ministry until the matter is passed upon by the\nbishop.\n\nAbout the middle of the seventeenth century another ponderous folio was\npublished in Venice upon the same subject and with the same title, by\nOnorato Leotardi. So far from showing any signs of yielding, he is even\nmore extreme than Vilagut had been, and quotes with approval the old\ndeclaration that lenders of money at interest are not only robbers but\nmurderers.\n\nSo far as we can learn, no real opposition was made in either century to\nthis theory, as a theory; as to PRACTICE, it was different. The Italian\ntraders did not answer theological argument; they simply overrode it. In\nspite of theology, great banks were established, and especially that\nof Venice at the end of the twelfth century, and those of Barcelona and\nGenoa at the beginning of the fifteenth. Nowhere was commerce carried\non in more complete defiance of this and other theological theories\nhampering trade than in the very city where these great treatises\nwere published. The sin of usury, like the sin of commerce with the\nMohammedans, seems to have been settled for by the Venetian merchants\non their deathbeds; and greatly to the advantage of the magnificent\nchurches and ecclesiastical adornments of the city.\n\nBy the seventeenth century the clearest thinkers in the Roman Church saw\nthat her theology must be readjusted to political economy: so began a\nseries of amazing attempts to reconcile a view permitting usury with the\nlong series of decrees of popes and councils forbidding it.\n\nIn Spain, the great Jesuit casuist Escobar led the way, and rarely\nhad been seen such exquisite hair-splitting. But his efforts were not\nreceived with the gratitude they perhaps deserved. Pascal, revolting at\ntheir moral effect, attacked them unsparingly in his Provincial Letters,\nciting especially such passages as the following: \"It is usury to\nreceive profit from those to whom one lends, if it be exacted as justly\ndue; but, if it be exacted as a debt of gratitude, it is not usury.\"\nThis and a multitude of similar passages Pascal covered with the keen\nridicule and indignant denunciation of which he was so great a master.\n\nBut even the genius of Pascal could not stop such efforts. In the\neighteenth century they were renewed by a far greater theologian than\nEscobar--by him who was afterward made a saint and proclaimed a doctor\nof the Church--Alphonso Liguori.\n\nStarting with bitter denunciations of usury, Liguori soon developed a\nmultitude of subtle devices for escaping the guilt of it. Presenting\na long and elaborate theory of \"mental, usury\" he arrives at the\nconclusion that, if the borrower pay interest of his own free will, the\nlender may keep it. In answer to the question whether the lender may\nkeep what the borrower paid, not out of gratitude but out of fear--fear\nthat otherwise loans might be refused him in future--Liguori says, \"To\nbe usury it must be paid by reason of a contract, or as justly due;\npayment by reason of such a fear does not cause interest to be paid\nas an actual price.\" Again Liguori tells us, \"It is not usury to\nexact something in return for the danger and expense of regaining\nthe principal.\" The old subterfuges of \"Damnum emergens\" and \"Lucrum\ncessans\" are made to do full duty. A remarkable quibble is found in the\nanswer to the question whether he sins who furnishes money to a man\nwhom he knows to intend employing it in usury. After citing affirmative\nopinions from many writers, Liguori says, \"Notwithstanding these\nopinions, the better opinion seems to me to be that the man thus putting\nout his money is not bound to make restitution, for his action is not\ninjurious to the borrower, but rather favourable to him,\" and this\nreasoning the saint develops at great length.\n\nIn the Latin countries this sort of casuistry eased the relations of\nthe Church with the bankers, and it was full time; for now there came\narguments of a different kind. The eighteenth century philosophy\nhad come upon the stage, and the first effective onset of political\nscientists against the theological opposition in southern Europe was\nmade in Italy--the most noted leaders in the attack being Galiani and\nMaffei. Here and there feeble efforts were made to meet them, but it was\nfelt more and more by thinking churchmen that entirely different tactics\nmust be adopted.\n\nAbout the same time came an attack in France, and though its results\nwere less immediate at home, they were much more effective abroad. In\n1748 appeared Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws. In this famous book were\nconcentrated twenty years of study and thought by a great thinker on\nthe interests of the world about him. In eighteen months it went through\ntwenty-two editions; it was translated into every civilized language;\nand among the things on which Montesquieu brought his wit and wisdom\nto bear with especial force was the doctrine of the Church regarding\ninterest on loans. In doing this he was obliged to use a caution in\nforms which seems strangely at variance with the boldness of his ideas.\nIn view of the strictness of ecclesiastical control in France, he felt\nit safest to make his whole attack upon those theological and economic\nfollies of Mohammedan countries which were similar to those which the\ntheological spirit had fastened on France.(456)\n\n\n     (456) For Vilagut, see his Tractatus de Usuris, Venice, 1589, especially\npp. 21, 25, 399. For Leotardi, see his De Usuris, Venice, 1655,\nespecially preface, pp. 6, 7 et seq. For Pascal and Escobar, see the\nProvincial Letters, edited by Sayres, Cambridge, 1880, Letter VIII, pp.\n183-186; also a note to the same letter, p. 196. For Liguori, see\nhis Theologia Moralis, Paris, 1834, lib. iii, tract v, cap. iii: De\nContractibus, dub, vii. For the eighteenth century attack in Italy, see\nBohm-Bawerk, pp. 48 et seq. For Montesquieu's view of interest on loans,\nsee the Esprit des Lois, livre xxii.\n\n\nBy the middle of the eighteenth century the Church authorities at\nRome clearly saw the necessity of a concession: the world would endure\ntheological restriction no longer; a way of escape MUST be found. It was\nseen, even by the most devoted theologians, that mere denunciations and\nuse of theological arguments or scriptural texts against the scientific\nidea were futile.\n\nTo this feeling it was due that, even in the first years of the century,\nthe Jesuit casuists had come to the rescue. With exquisite subtlety some\nof their acutest intellects devoted themselves to explaining away the\nutterances on this subject of saints, fathers, doctors, popes, and\ncouncils. These explanations were wonderfully ingenious, but many of the\nolder churchmen continued to insist upon the orthodox view, and at last\nthe Pope himself intervened. Fortunately for the world, the seat of\nSt. Peter was then occupied by Benedict XIV, certainly one of the most\ngifted, morally and intellectually, in the whole line of Roman pontiffs.\nTolerant and sympathetic for the oppressed, he saw the necessity of\ntaking up the question, and he grappled with it effectually: he\nrendered to Catholicism a service like that which Calvin had rendered\nto Protestantism, by shrewdly cutting a way through the theological\nbarrier. In 1745 he issued his encyclical Vix pervenit, which declared\nthat the doctrine of the Church remained consistent with itself; that\nusury is indeed a sin, and that it consists in demanding any amount\nbeyond the exact amount lent, but that there are occasions when on\nspecial grounds the lender may obtain such additional sum.\n\nWhat these \"occasions\" and \"special grounds\" might be, was left very\nvague; but this action was sufficient.\n\nAt the same time no new restrictions upon books advocating the taking\nof interest for money were imposed, and, in the year following his\nencyclical, Benedict openly accepted the dedication of one of them--the\nwork of Maffei, and perhaps the most cogent of all.\n\nLike the casuistry of Boscovich in using the Copernican theory for\n\"convenience in argument,\" while acquiescing in its condemnation by the\nChurch authorities, this encyclical of Pope Benedict broke the spell.\nTurgot, Quesnay, Adam Smith, Hume, Bentham, and their disciples pressed\non, and science won for mankind another great victory.(457)\n\n\n     (457) For Quesnay, see his Observations sur l'Interet de l'Argent, in\nhis Oeuvres, Frankfort and Paris, 1888, pp. 399 et seq. For Turgot, see\nthe Collections des Economistes, Paris, 1844, vols. iii and iv; also\nBlanqui, Histoire de l'Economie Politique, English translation, p. 373.\nFor an excellent though brief summary of the efforts of the Jesuits to\nexplain away the old action of the Church, see Lecky, vol. ii, pp\n256, 257. For the action of Benedict XIV, see Reusch, Der Index der\nVorbotenen Bucher, Bonn, 1885, vol. ii, pp 847, 848. For a comical\npicture of the \"quagmire' into which the hierarchy brought itself in the\nsquaring of its practice with its theory, see Dollinger, as above, pp.\n227, 228. For cunningly vague statements of the action of Benedict XIV,\nsee Mastrofini, Sur l'Usure, French translation, Lyons, 1834, pp. 125,\n255. The abbate, as will be seen, has not the slightest hesitaion in\ntelling an untruth in order to preserve the consistency of papal action\nin the matter of usury--e.g., pp. 93, 94 96, and elsewhere.\n\n\nYet in this case, as in others, insurrections against the sway of\nscientific truth appeared among some overzealous religionists. When the\nSorbonne, having retreated from its old position, armed itself with\nnew casuistries against those who held to its earlier decisions, sundry\nprovincial doctors in theology protested indignantly, making the\nold citations from the Scriptures, fathers, saints, doctors, popes,\ncouncils, and canonists. Again the Roman court intervened. In 1830\nthe Inquisition at Rome, with the approval of Pius VIII, though still\ndeclining to commit itself on the DOCTRINE involved, decreed that, as to\nPRACTICE, confessors should no longer disturb lenders of money at legal\ninterest.\n\nBut even this did not quiet the more conscientious theologians. The old\nweapons were again furbished and hurled by the Abbe Laborde, Vicar\nof the Metropolitan Archdiocese of Auch, and by the Abbe Dennavit,\nProfessor of Theology at Lyons. Good Abbe Dennavit declared that he\nrefused absolution to those who took interest and to priests who pretend\nthat the sanction of the civil law is sufficient.\n\nBut the \"wisdom of the serpent\" was again brought into requisition, and\nearly in the decade between 1830 and 1840 the Abbate Mastrofini issued\na work on usury, which, he declared on its title-page, demonstrated that\n\"moderate usury is not contrary to Holy Scripture, or natural law,\nor the decisions of the Church.\" Nothing can be more comical than the\nsuppressions of truth, evasions of facts, jugglery with phrases,\nand perversions of history, to which the abbate is forced to resort\nthroughout his book in order to prove that the Church has made no\nmistake. In the face of scores of explicit deliverances and decrees of\nfathers, doctors, popes, and councils against the taking of any interest\nwhatever for money, he coolly pretended that what they had declared\nagainst was EXORBITANT interest. He made a merit of the action of the\nChurch, and showed that its course had been a blessing to humanity. But\nhis masterpiece is in dealing with the edicts of Clement V and Benedict\nXIV. As to the first, it will be remembered that Clement, in accord\nwith the Council of Vienne, had declared that \"any one who shall\npertinaciously presume to affirm that the taking of interest for money\nis not a sin, we decree him to be a heiretic fit for punishment,\" and we\nhave seen that Benedict XIV did not at all deviate from the doctrines of\nhis predecessors. Yet Mastrofini is equal to his task, and brings out,\nas the conclusion of his book, the statement put upon his title-page,\nthat what the Church condemns is only EXORBITANT interest.\n\nThis work was sanctioned by various high ecclesiastical dignitaries, and\nserved its purpose; for it covered the retreat of the Church.\n\nIn 1872 the Holy Office, answering a question solemnly put by the Bishop\nof Ariano, as solemnly declared that those who take eight per cent\ninterest per annum are \"not to be disquieted\"; and in 1873 appeared a\nbook published under authority from the Holy See, allowing the faithful\nto take moderate interest under condition that any future decisions\nof the Pope should be implicitly obeyed. Social science as applied to\npolitical economy had gained a victory final and complete. The Torlonia\nfamily at Rome to-day, with its palaces, chapels, intermarriages,\naffiliations, and papal favour--all won by lending money at interest,\nand by liberal gifts, from the profits of usury, to the Holy See--is but\none out of many growths of its kind on ramparts long since surrendered\nand deserted.(458)\n\n\n     (458) For the decree forbidding confessors to trouble lenders of money\nat legal interest, see Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, as above;\nalso Mastrofini, as above, in the appendix, where various other\nrecent Roman decrees are given. As to the controversy generally, see\nMastrofini; also La Replique des douze Docteurs, cited by Guillaumin and\nCoquelin; also Reusch, vol. ii, p. 850. As an example of Mastrofini's\nway of making black appear white, compare the Latin text of the decree\non page 97 with his statements regarding it; see also his cunning\nsubstitution of the new significance of the word usury for the old in\nvarious parts of his book. A good historical presentation of the general\nsubject will be found in Roscher, Geschichte der National-Oeconomie in\nDeutschland, Munchen, 1874, under articles Wucher and Zinsnehmen. For\nFrance, see especially Petit, Traite de l'Usure, Paris, 1840; and for\nGermany, see Neumann, Geschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland, Halle,\n1865. For the view of a modern leader of thought in this field, see\nJeremy Bentham, Defence of Usury, Letter X. For an admirable piece of\nresearch into the nicer points involved in the whole subject, see H.\nC. Lea, The Ecclesiatical Treatment of Usury, in the Yale Review for\nFebruary, 1894.\n\n\nThe dealings of theology with public economy were by no means confined\nto the taking of interest for money. It would be interesting to note\nthe restrictions placed upon commerce by the Church prohibition of\ncommercial intercourse with infidels, against which the Republic of\nVenice fought a good fight; to note how, by a most curious perversion\nof Scripture in the Greek Church, many of the peasantry of Russia were\nprevented from raising and eating potatoes; how, in Scotland, at the\nbeginning of this century, the use of fanning mills for winnowing grain\nwas widely denounced as contrary to the text, \"The wind bloweth where it\nlisteth,\" etc., as leaguing with Satan, who is \"Prince of the powers of\nthe air,\" and therefore as sufficient cause for excommunication from the\nScotch Church. Instructive it would be also to note how the introduction\nof railways was declared by an archbishop of the French Church to be an\nevidence of the divine displeasure against country innkeepers who set\nmeat before their guests on fast days, and who were now punished by\nseeing travellers carried by their doors; how railways and telegraphs\nwere denounced from a few noted pulpits as heralds of Antichrist; and\nhow in Protestant England the curate of Rotherhithe, at the breaking in\nof the Thames Tunnel, so destructive to life and property, declared it\nfrom his pulpit a just judgment upon the presumptuous aspirations of\nmortal man.\n\nThe same tendency is seen in the opposition of conscientious men to the\ntaking of the census in Sweden and the United States, on account of\nthe terms in which the numbering of Israel is spoken of in the Old\nTestament. Religious scruples on similar grounds have also been avowed\nagainst so beneficial a thing as life insurance.\n\nApparently unimportant as these manifestations are, they indicate a\nwidespread tendency; in the application of scriptural declarations to\nmatters of social economy, which has not yet ceased, though it is fast\nfading away.(459)\n\n\n     (459) For various interdicts laid upon commerce by the Church, see Heyd,\nHistoire du Commerce du Levant au Moyen-Age, Leipsic, 1886, vol. ii,\npassim. For the injury done to commerce by prohibition of intercourse\nwith the infidel, see Lindsay, History of Merchant Shipping, London,\n1874, vol. ii. For superstitions regarding the introduction of the\npotato in Russia, and the name \"devil's root\" given it, see Hellwald,\nCulturgeschichte, vol. ii, p. 476; also Haxthausen, La Russie. For\nopposition to winnowing machines, see Burton, History of Scotland, vol.\nviii, p. 511; also Lecky, Eighteenth Century, vol. ii, p. 83; also Mause\nHeadrigg's views in Scott's Old Mortality, chap. vii. For the case of a\nperson debarred from the communion for \"raising the devil's wind\" with\na winnowing machine, see Works of Sir J. Y. Simpson, vol. ii. Those\ndoubting the authority or motives of Simpson may be reminded that he\nwas to the day of his death one of the strictest adherants to Scotch\northodoxy. As to the curate of Rotherhithe, see Journal of Sir I. Brunel\nfor May 20, 1827, in Life of I. K. Brunel, p. 30. As to the conclusions\ndrawn from the numbering of Israel, see Michaelis, Commentaries on the\nLaws of Moses, 1874, vol. ii, p. 3. The author of this work himself\nwitnessed the reluctance of a very conscientious man to answer the\nquestions of a census marshal, Mr. Lewis Hawley, of Syracuse, New York;\nand this reluctance was based upon the reasons assigned in II Samuel\nxxiv, 1, and I Chronicles xxi,1, for the numbering of the children of\nIsrael.\n\n\nWorthy of especial study, too, would be the evolution of the modern\nmethods of raising and bettering the condition of the poor,--the\nevolution, especially, of the idea that men are to be helped to help\nthemselves, in opposition to the old theories of indiscriminate giving,\nwhich, taking root in some of the most beautiful utterances of our\nsacred books, grew in the warm atmosphere of medieval devotion into\ngreat systems for the pauperizing of the labouring classes. Here, too,\nscientific modes of thought in social science have given a new and\nnobler fruitage to the whole growth of Christian benevolence.(460)\n\n\n     (460) Among the vast number of authorities regarding the evolution of\nbetter methods in dealing with pauperism, I would call attention to\na work which is especially suggestive--Behrends, Christianity and\nSocialism, New York, 1886.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.  FROM THE DIVINE ORACLES TO THE HIGHER CRITICISM.\n\n\n\n\nI. THE OLDER INTERPRETATION.\n\n\nThe great sacred books of the world are the most precious of human\npossessions. They embody the deepest searchings into the most vital\nproblems of humanity in all its stages: the naive guesses of the world's\nchildhood, the opening conceptions of its youth, the more fully rounded\nbeliefs of its maturity.\n\nThese books, no matter how unhistorical in parts and at times,\nare profoundly true. They mirror the evolution of man's loftiest\naspirations, hopes, loves, consolations, and enthusiasms; his hates and\nfears; his views of his origin and destiny; his theories of his rights\nand duties; and these not merely in their lights but in their shadows.\nTherefore it is that they contain the germs of truths most necessary in\nthe evolution of humanity, and give to these germs the environment and\nsustenance which best insure their growth and strength.\n\nWith wide differences in origin and character, this sacred literature\nhas been developed and has exercised its influence in obedience to\ncertain general laws. First of these in time, if not in importance, is\nthat which governs its origin: in all civilizations we find that the\nDivine Spirit working in the mind of man shapes his sacred books first\nof all out of the chaos of myth and legend; and of these books, when\nlife is thus breathed into them, the fittest survive.\n\nSo broad and dense is this atmosphere of myth and legend enveloping\nthem that it lingers about them after they have been brought forth\nfull-orbed; and, sometimes, from it are even produced secondary mythical\nand legendary concretions--satellites about these greater orbs of early\nthought. Of these secondary growths one may be mentioned as showing how\nrich in myth-making material was the atmosphere which enveloped our own\nearlier sacred literature.\n\nIn the third century before Christ there began to be elaborated among\nthe Jewish scholars of Alexandria, then the great centre of human\nthought, a Greek translation of the main books constituting the Old\nTestament. Nothing could be more natural at that place and time than\nsuch a translation; yet the growth of explanatory myth and legend around\nit was none the less luxuriant. There was indeed a twofold growth. Among\nthe Jews favourable to the new version a legend rose which justified it.\nThis legend in its first stage was to the effect that the Ptolemy then\non the Egyptian throne had, at the request of his chief librarian, sent\nto Jerusalem for translators; that the Jewish high priest Eleazar had\nsent to the king a most precious copy of the Scriptures from the temple\nat Jerusalem, and six most venerable, devout, and learned scholars from\neach of the twelve tribes of Israel; that the number of translators thus\ncorresponded with the mysterious seventy-two appellations of God;\nand that the combined efforts of these seventy-two men produced a\nmarvellously perfect translation.\n\nBut in that atmosphere of myth and marvel the legend continued to grow,\nand soon we have it blooming forth yet more gorgeously in the statement\nthat King Ptolemy ordered each of the seventy-two to make by himself\na full translation of the entire Old Testament, and shut up each\ntranslator in a separate cell on the island of Pharos, secluding him\nthere until the work was done; that the work of each was completed in\nexactly seventy-two days; and that when, at the end of the seventy-two\ndays, the seventy-two translations were compared, each was found exactly\nlike all the others. This showed clearly Jehovah's APPROVAL.\n\nBut out of all this myth and legend there was also evolved an account of\na very different sort. The Jews who remained faithful to the traditions\nof their race regarded this Greek version as a profanation, and\ntherefore there grew up the legend that on the completion of the work\nthere was darkness over the whole earth during three days. This showed\nclearly Jehovah's DISAPPROVAL.\n\nThese well-known legends, which arose within what--as compared with any\nprevious time--was an exceedingly enlightened period, and which were\nsteadfastly believed by a vast multitude of Jews and Christians for\nages, are but single examples among scores which show how inevitably\nsuch traditions regarding sacred books are developed in the earlier\nstages of civilization, when men explain everything by miracle and\nnothing by law.(461)\n\n\n     (461) For the legend regarding the Septaguint, especially as developed\nby the letters of Pseudo-Aristeas, and for quaint citations from the\nfathers regarding it, see The History of the Seventy-two Interpretors,\nfrom the Greek of Aristeas, translated by Mr. Lewis, London, 1715; also\nClement of Alexandria, in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library, Edinburgh,\n1867, p. 448. For interesting summaries showing the growth of the\nstory, see Drummond, Philo Judaeus and the Growth of the Alexandrian\nPhilosophy, London, 1888, vol. i, pp. 231 et seq.; also Renan, Histoire\ndu Peuple Israel, vol. iv, chap. iv; also, for Philo Judaeus's part in\ndeveloping the legend, see Rev. Dr. Sanday's Bampton Lectures for 1893,\non Inspiration, pp. 86, 87.\n\n\nAs the second of these laws governing the evolution of sacred literature\nmay be mentioned that which we have constantly seen so effective in the\ngrowth of theological ideas--that to which Comte gave the name of the\nLaw of Wills and Causes. Obedient to this, man attributes to the Supreme\nBeing a physical, intellectual, and moral structure like his own; hence\nit is that the votary of each of the great world religions ascribes to\nits sacred books what he considers absolute perfection: he imagines them\nto be what he himself would give the world, were he himself infinitely\ngood, wise, and powerful.\n\nA very simple analogy might indeed show him that even a literature\nemanating from an all-wise, beneficent, and powerful author might not\nseem perfect when judged by a human standard; for he has only to look\nabout him in the world to find that the work which he attributes to an\nall-wise, all-beneficent, and all-powerful Creator is by no means free\nfrom evil and wrong.\n\nBut this analogy long escapes him, and the exponent of each great\nreligion proves to his own satisfaction, and to the edification of his\nfellows, that their own sacred literature is absolutely accurate in\nstatement, infinitely profound in meaning, and miraculously perfect in\nform. From these premises also he arrives at the conclusion that his own\nsacred literature is unique; that no other sacred book can have emanated\nfrom a divine source; and that all others claiming to be sacred are\nimpostures.\n\nStill another law governing the evolution of sacred literature in every\ngreat world religion is, that when the books which compose it are once\nselected and grouped they come to be regarded as a final creation from\nwhich nothing can be taken away, and of which even error in form, if\nsanctioned by tradition, may not be changed.\n\nThe working of this law has recently been seen on a large scale.\n\nA few years since, a body of chosen scholars, universally acknowledged\nto be the most fit for the work, undertook, at the call of\nEnglish-speaking Christendom, to revise the authorized English version\nof the Bible.\n\nBeautiful as was that old version, there was abundant reason for a\nrevision. The progress of biblical scholarship had revealed multitudes\nof imperfections and not a few gross errors in the work of the early\ntranslators, and these, if uncorrected, were sure to bring the sacred\nvolume into discredit.\n\nNothing could be more reverent than the spirit of the revisers, and the\nnineteenth century has known few historical events of more significant\nand touching beauty than the participation in the holy communion by all\nthese scholars--prelates, presbyters, ministers, and laymen of churches\nmost widely differing in belief and observance--kneeling side by side at\nthe little altar in Westminster Abbey.\n\nNor could any work have been more conservative and cautious than\ntheirs; as far as possible they preserved the old matter and form with\nscrupulous care.\n\nYet their work was no sooner done than it was bitterly attacked and\nwidely condemned; to this day it is largely regarded with dislike.\nIn Great Britain, in America, in Australia, the old version, with its\nglaring misconceptions, mistranslations, and interpolations, is still\nread in preference to the new; the great body of English-speaking\nChristians clearly preferring the accustomed form of words given by the\nseventeenth-century translators, rather than a nearer approach to the\nexact teaching of the Holy Ghost.\n\nStill another law is, that when once a group of sacred books has\nbeen evolved--even though the group really be a great library of most\ndissimilar works, ranging in matter from the hundredth Psalm to the\nSong of Songs, and in manner from the sublimity of Isaiah to the offhand\nstory-telling of Jonah--all come to be thought one inseparable mass\nof interpenetrating parts; every statement in each fitting exactly and\nmiraculously into each statement in every other; and each and every one,\nand all together, literally true to fact, and at the same time full of\nhidden meanings.\n\nThe working of these and other laws governing the evolution of sacred\nliterature is very clearly seen in the great rabbinical schools which\nflourished at Jerusalem, Tiberias, and elsewhere, after the return of\nthe Jews from the Babylonian captivity, and especially as we approach\nthe time of Christ. These schools developed a subtlety in the study of\nthe Old Testament which seems almost preternatural. The resultant system\nwas mainly a jugglery with words, phrases, and numbers, which finally\nbecame a \"sacred science,\" with various recognised departments, in which\ninterpretation was carried on sometimes by attaching a numerical\nvalue to letters; sometimes by interchange of letters from differently\narranged alphabets; sometimes by the making of new texts out of the\ninitial letters of the old; and with ever-increasing subtlety.\n\nSuch efforts as these culminated fitly in the rabbinical declaration\nthat each passage in the law has seventy distinct meanings, and that God\nhimself gives three hours every day to their study.\n\nAfter this the Jewish world was prepared for anything, and it does not\nsurprise us to find such discoveries in the domain of ethical culture as\nthe doctrine that, for inflicting the forty stripes save one upon those\nwho broke the law, the lash should be braided of ox-hide and ass-hide;\nand, as warrant for this construction of the lash, the text, \"The ox\nknoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib, but Israel doth not\nknow\"; and, as the logic connecting text and lash, the statement that\nJehovah evidently intended to command that \"the men who know not shall\nbe beaten by those animals whose knowledge shames them.\"\n\nBy such methods also were revealed such historical treasures as that Og,\nKing of Bashan, escaped the deluge by wading after Noah's ark.\n\nThere were, indeed, noble exceptions to this kind of teaching. It can\nnot be forgotten that Rabbi Hillel formulated the golden rule, which\nhad before him been given to the extreme Orient by Confucius, and which\nafterward received a yet more beautiful and positive emphasis from Jesus\nof Nazareth; but the seven rules of interpretation laid down by Hillel\nwere multiplied and refined by men like Rabbi Ismael and Rabbi Eleazar\nuntil they justified every absurd subtlety.(462)\n\n\n     (462) For a multitude of amusing examples of rabbinical interpretations,\nsee an article in Blackwood's Magazine for November, 1882. For a more\ngeneral discussion, see Archdeacon Farrar's History of Interpretation,\nlect. i and ii, and Rev. Prof. H. P. Smith's Inspiration and Inerrancy,\nCincinnati, 1893, especially chap. iv; also Reuss, History of the New\nTestament, English translation, pp. 527, 528.\n\n\nAn eminent scholar has said that while the letter of Scripture became\nossified in Palestine, it became volatilized at Alexandria; and the\ntruth of this remark was proved by the Alexandrian Jewish theologians\njust before the beginning of our era.\n\nThis, too, was in obedience to a law of development, which is, that\nwhen literal interpretation clashes with increasing knowledge or with\nprogress in moral feeling, theologians take refuge in mystic meanings--a\nlaw which we see working in all great religions, from the Brahmans\nfinding hidden senses in the Vedas, to Plato and the Stoics finding\nthem in the Greek myths; and from the Sofi reading new meanings into the\nKoran, to eminent Christian divines of the nineteenth century giving a\nnon-natural sense to some of the plainest statements in the Bible.\n\nNothing is more natural than all this. When naive statements of sacred\nwriters, in accord with the ethics of early ages, make Brahma perform\natrocities which would disgrace a pirate; and Jupiter take part in\nadventures worthy of Don Juan; and Jahveh practise trickery, cruelty,\nand high-handed injustice which would bring any civilized mortal into\nthe criminal courts, the invention of allegory is the one means of\nsaving the divine authority as soon as men reach higher planes of\ncivilization.\n\nThe great early master in this evolution of allegory, for the\nsatisfaction of Jews and Christians, was Philo: by him its use came in\nas never before. The four streams of the garden of Eden thus become the\nfour virtues; Abraham's country and kindred, from which he was commanded\nto depart, the human body and its members; the five cities of Sodom,\nthe five senses; the Euphrates, correction of manners. By Philo and\nhis compeers even the most insignificant words and phrases, and those\nespecially, were held to conceal the most precious meanings.\n\nA perfectly natural and logical result of this view was reached when\nPhilo, saturated as he was with Greek culture and nourished on pious\ntraditions of the utterances at Delphi and Dodona, spoke reverently of\nthe Jewish Scriptures as \"oracles\". Oracles they became: as oracles they\nappeared in the early history of the Christian Church; and oracles they\nremained for centuries: eternal life or death, infinite happiness or\nagony, as well as ordinary justice in this world, being made to depend\non shifting interpretations of a long series of dark and doubtful\nutterances--interpretations frequently given by men who might have been\nprophets and apostles, but who had become simply oracle-mongers.\n\nPressing these oracles into the service of science, Philo became the\nforerunner of that long series of theologians who, from Augustine and\nCosmas to Mr. Gladstone, have attempted to extract from scriptural myth\nand legend profound contributions to natural science. Thus he taught\nthat the golden candlesticks in the tabernacle symbolized the planets,\nthe high priest's robe the universe, and the bells upon it the harmony\nof earth and water--whatever that may mean. So Cosmas taught, a thousand\nyears later, that the table of shewbread in the tabernacle showed forth\nthe form and construction of the world; and Mr. Gladstone hinted,\nmore than a thousand years later still, that Neptune's trident had a\nmysterious connection with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.(463)\n\n\n     (463) For Philo Judaeus, see Yonge's translation, Bohn's edition; see\nalso Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 78-85. For admirable general remarks on\nthis period in history of exegesis, see Bartlett, Bampton Lectures,\n1888, p. 29. For efforts in general to save the credit of myths by\nallegorical interpretation, and for those of Philo in particular, see\nDrummond, Philo Judaeus, London, 1888, vol. i, pp. 18, 19, and notes.\nFor interesting examples of Alexandrian exegesis and for Philo's\napplication of the term \"oracle\" to the Jewish Scriptures, see Farrar,\nHistory of Interpretation, p. 147 and note. For his discovery of symbols\nof the universe in the furniture of the tabernacle, see Drummond, as\nabove, pp. 269 et seq. For the general subject, admirably discussed\nfrom a historical point of view, see the Rev. Edwin Hatch, D. D., The\nInfluence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, Hibbert\nLectures for 1888, chap. iii. For Cosmas, see my chapters on Geography\nand Astronomy. For Mr. Gladstone's view of the connection between\nNeptune's trident and the doctrine of the Trinity, see his Juventus\nMundi.\n\n\nThese methods, as applied to the Old Testament, had appeared at times\nin the New; in spite of the resistance of Tertullian and Irenaeus, they\nwere transmitted to the Church; and in the works of the early fathers\nthey bloomed forth luxuriantly.\n\nJustin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria vigorously extended them.\nTypical of Justin's method is his finding, in a very simple reference by\nIsaiah to Damascus, Samaria, and Assyria, a clear prophecy of the three\nwise men of the East who brought gifts to the infant Saviour; and in the\nbells on the priest's robe a prefiguration of the twelve apostles.\nAny difficulty arising from the fact that the number of bells is not\nspecified in Scripture, Justin overcame by insisting that David referred\nto this prefiguration in the nineteenth Psalm: \"Their sound is gone out\nthrough all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.\"\n\nWorking in this vein, Clement of Alexandria found in the form,\ndimensions, and colour of the Jewish tabernacle a whole wealth of\ninterpretation--the altar of incense representing the earth placed at\nthe centre of the universe; the high priest's robe the visible world;\nthe jewels on the priest's robe the zodiac; and Abraham's three days'\njourney to Mount Moriah the three stages of the soul in its progress\ntoward the knowledge of God. Interpreting the New Testament, he lessened\nany difficulties involved in the miracle of the barley loaves and fishes\nby suggesting that what it really means is that Jesus gave mankind a\npreparatory training for the gospel by means of the law and philosophy;\nbecause, as he says, barley, like the law, ripens sooner than wheat,\nwhich represents the gospel; and because, just as fishes grow in the\nwaves of the ocean, so philosophy grew in the waves of the Gentile\nworld.\n\nOut of reasonings like these, those who followed, especially Cosmas,\ndeveloped, as we have seen, a complete theological science of geography\nand astronomy.(464)\n\n\n     (464) For Justin, see the Dialogue with Trypho, chaps. xlii, lxxvi, and\nlxxxiii. For Clement of Alexandria, see his Miscellanies, book v,\nchaps. vi and xi, and book vii, chap. xvi, and especially Hatch, Hibbert\nLectures, as above, pp. 76, 77. As to the loose views of the canon held\nby these two fathers and others of their time, see Ladd, Doctrine of\nthe Sacred Scriptures, vol. ii, pp. 86, 88; also Diestel, Geschichte des\nalten Testaments.\n\n\nBut the instrument in exegesis which was used with most cogent force was\nthe occult significance of certain numbers. The Chaldean and Egyptian\nresearches of our own time have revealed the main source of this line of\nthought; the speculations of Plato upon it are well known; but among\nthe Jews and in the early Church it grew into something far beyond the\nwildest imaginings of the priests of Memphis and Babylon.\n\nPhilo had found for the elucidation of Scripture especially deep\nmeanings in the numbers four, six, and seven; but other interpreters\nsoon surpassed him. At the very outset this occult power was used in\nascertaining the canonical books of Scripture. Josephus argued that,\nsince there were twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet, there\nmust be twenty-two sacred books in the Old Testament; other Jewish\nauthorities thought that there should be twenty-four books, on account\nof the twenty-four watches in the temple. St. Jerome wavered between the\nargument based upon the twenty-two letters in the Hebrew alphabet and\nthat suggested by the twenty-four elders in the Apocalypse. Hilary of\nPoitiers argued that there must be twenty-four books, on account of the\ntwenty-four letters in the Greek alphabet. Origen found an argument\nfor the existence of exactly four gospels in the existence of just four\nelements. Irenaeus insisted that there could be neither more nor fewer\nthan four gospels, since the earth has four quarters, the air four\nwinds, and the cherubim four faces; and he denounced those who declined\nto accept this reasoning as \"vain, ignorant, and audacious.\"(465)\n\n\n     (465) For Jerome and Origen, see notes on pages following. For Irenaeus,\nsee Irenaeus, Adversus Hoeres., lib. iii, cap. xi, S 8. For the general\nsubject, see Sanday, Inspiration, p. 115; also Farrar and H. P. Smith\nas above. For a recent very full and very curious statement from a Roman\nCatholic authority regarding views cherished in the older Church as to\nthe symbolism of numbers, see Detzel, Christliche Iconographie, Freiburg\nin Bresigau, Band i, Einleitung, p. 4.\n\n\nBut during the first half of the third century came one who exercised\na still stronger influence in this direction--a great man who, while\nrendering precious services, did more than any other to fasten upon the\nChurch a system which has been one of its heaviest burdens for more than\nsixteen hundred years: this was Origen. Yet his purpose was noble\nand his work based on profound thought. He had to meet the leading\nphilosophers of the pagan world, to reply to their arguments against the\nOld Testament, and especially to break the force of their taunts against\nits imputation of human form, limitations, passions, weaknesses, and\neven immoralities to the Almighty.\n\nStarting with a mistaken translation of a verse in the book of Proverbs,\nOrigen presented as a basis for his main structure the idea of\na threefold sense of Scripture: the literal, the moral, and the\nmystic--corresponding to the Platonic conception of the threefold nature\nof man. As results of this we have such masterpieces as his proof, from\nthe fifth verse of chapter xxv of Job, that the stars are living beings,\nand from the well-known passage in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew\nhis warrant for self-mutilation. But his great triumphs were in the\nallegorical method. By its use the Bible was speedily made an oracle\nindeed, or, rather, a book of riddles. A list of kings in the Old\nTestament thus becomes an enumeration of sins; the waterpots of stone,\n\"containing two or three firkins apiece,\" at the marriage of Cana,\nsignify the literal, moral, and spiritual sense of Scripture; the\nass upon which the Saviour rode on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem\nbecomes the Old Testament, the foal the New Testament, and the two\napostles who went to loose them the moral and mystical senses; blind\nBartimeus throwing off his coat while hastening to Jesus, opens a whole\ntreasury of oracular meanings.\n\nThe genius and power of Origen made a great impression on the strong\nthinkers who followed him. St. Jerome called him \"the greatest master in\nthe Church since the apostles,\" and Athanasius was hardly less emphatic.\n\nThe structure thus begun was continued by leading theologians during\nthe centuries following: St. Hilary of Poitiers--\"the Athanasius of\nGaul\"--produced some wonderful results of this method; but St. Jerome,\ninspired by the example of the man whom he so greatly admired, went\nbeyond him. A triumph of his exegesis is seen in his statement that\nthe Shunamite damsel who was selected to cherish David in his old age\nsignified heavenly wisdom.\n\nThe great mind of St. Augustine was drawn largely into this kind of\ncreation, and nothing marks more clearly the vast change which had come\nover the world than the fact that this greatest of the early Christian\nthinkers turned from the broader paths opened by Plato and Aristotle\ninto that opened by Clement of Alexandria.\n\n\nIn the mystic power of numbers to reveal the sense of Scripture\nAugustine found especial delight. He tells us that there is deep meaning\nin sundry scriptural uses of the number forty, and especially as the\nnumber of days required for fasting. Forty, he reminds us, is four times\nten. Now, four, he says, is the number especially representing time, the\nday and the year being each divided into four parts; while ten, being\nmade up of three and seven, represents knowledge of the Creator and\ncreature, three referring to the three persons in the triune Creator,\nand seven referring to the three elements, heart, soul, and mind, taken\nin connection with the four elements, fire, air, earth, and water, which\ngo to make up the creature. Therefore this number ten, representing\nknowledge, being multiplied by four, representing time, admonishes us\nto live during time according to knowledge--that is, to fast for forty\ndays. Referring to such misty methods as these, which lead the reader to\nask himself whether he is sleeping or waking, St. Augustine remarks\nthat \"ignorance of numbers prevents us from understanding such things\nin Scripture.\" But perhaps the most amazing example is to be seen in his\nnotes on the hundred and fifty and three fishes which, according to St.\nJohn's Gospel, were caught by St. Peter and the other apostles. Some\npoints in his long development of this subject may be selected to show\nwhat the older theological method could be made to do for a great\nmind. He tells us that the hundred and fifty and three fishes embody\na mystery; that the number ten, evidently as the number of the\ncommandments, indicates the law; but, as the law without the spirit only\nkills, we must add the seven gifts of the spirit, and we thus have the\nnumber seventeen, which signifies the old and new dispensations; then,\nif we add together every several number which seventeen contains from\none to seventeen inclusive, the result is a hundred and fifty and\nthree--the number of the fishes. With this sort of reasoning he finds\nprofound meanings in the number of furlongs mentioned in he sixth\nchapter of St. John. Referring to the fact that the disciples had rowed\nabout \"twenty-five or thirty furlongs,\" he declares that \"twenty-five\ntypifies the law, because it is five times five, but the law was\nimperfect before the gospel came; now perfection is comprised in six,\nsince God in six days perfected the world, hence five is multiplied by\nsix that the law may be perfected by the gospel, and six times five is\nthirty.\"\n\nBut Augustine's exploits in exegesis were not all based on numerals; he\nis sometimes equally profound in other modes. Thus he tells us that the\ncondemnation of the serpent to eat dust typifies the sin of curiosity,\nsince in eating dust he \"penetrates the obscure and shadowy\"; and that\nNoah's ark was \"pitched within and without with pitch\" to show the\nsafety of the Church from the leaking in of heresy.\n\nStill another exploit--one at which the Church might well have stood\naghast--was his statement that the drunkenness of Noah prefigured the\nsuffering and death of Christ. It is but just to say that he was not\nthe original author of this interpretation: it had been presented long\nbefore by St. Cyprian. But this was far from Augustine's worst. Perhaps\nno interpretation of Scripture has ever led to more cruel and persistent\noppression, torture, and bloodshed than his reading into one of the most\nbeautiful parables of Jesus of Nazareth--into the words \"Compel them\nto come in\"--a warrant for religious persecution: of all unintended\nblasphemies since the world began, possibly the most appalling. Another\nstrong man follows to fasten these methods on the Church: St. Gregory\nthe Great. In his renowned work on the book of Job, the Magna Moralia,\ngiven to the world at the end of the sixth century, he lays great stress\non the deep mystical meanings of the statement that Job had seven sons.\nHe thinks the seven sons typify the twelve apostles, for \"the apostles\nwere selected through the sevenfold grace of the Spirit; moreover,\ntwelve is produced from seven--that is, the two parts of seven, four\nand three, when multiplied together give twelve.\" He also finds deep\nsignificance in the number of the apostles; this number being evidently\ndetermined by a multiplication of the number of persons in the Trinity\nby the number of quarters of the globe. Still, to do him justice, it\nmust be said that in some parts of his exegesis the strong sense which\nwas one of his most striking characteristics crops out in a way very\nrefreshing. Thus, referring to a passage in the first chapter of Job,\nregarding the oxen which were ploughing and the asses which were feeding\nbeside them, he tells us pithily that these typify two classes of\nChristians: the oxen, the energetic Christians who do the work of the\nChurch; the asses, the lazy Christians who merely feed.(466)\n\n\n     (466) For Origen, see the De Principiis, book iv, chaps. i-vii et seq.,\nCrombie's translation; also the Contra Celsum, vol. vi, p. 70; vol.\nvii, p. 20, etc.; also various citations in Farrar. For Hilary, see his\nTractatus super Psalmos, cap. ix, li, etc. in Migne, vol. ix, and De\nTrinitate, lib. ii, cap. ii. For Jerome's interpretation of the text\nrelating to the Shunamite woman, see Epist. lii, in Migne, vol. xxii,\npp. 527, 528. For Augustine's use of numbers, see the De Doctrina\nChristiana, lib. ii, cap. xvi; and for the explanation of the draught of\nfishes, see Augustine in, In Johan. Evangel., tractat. cxxii; and on the\ntwenty-five to thirty furlongs, ibid., tract. xxv, cap. 6; and for the\nsignificance of the serpent eating dust, De Gen., lib. ii, c. 18. or the\nview that the drunkenness of Noah prefigured the suffering of Christ, as\nheld by SS. Cyprian and Augustine, see Farrar, as above, pp. 181, 238.\nFor St. Gregory, see the Magna Moralia, lib. i, cap. xiv.\n\n\nThus began the vast theological structure of oracular interpretation\napplied to the Bible. As we have seen, the men who prepared the\nground for it were the rabbis of Palestine and the Hellenized Jews of\nAlexandria; and the four great men who laid its foundation courses were\nOrigen, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and St. Gregory.\n\nDuring the ten centuries following the last of these men this structure\ncontinued to rise steadily above the plain meanings of Scripture. The\nChristian world rejoiced in it, and the few great thinkers who dared\nbring the truth to bear upon it were rejected. It did indeed seem at one\nperiod in the early Church that a better system might be developed. The\nSchool of Antioch, especially as represented by Chrysostom, appeared\nlikely to lead in this better way, but the dominant forces were too\nstrong; the passion for myth and marvel prevailed over the love of\nreal knowledge, and the reasonings of Chrysostom and his compeers were\nneglected.(467)\n\n\n     (467) For the work of the School of Antioch, and especially of\nChrysostom, see the eloquent tribute to it by Farrar, as above.\n\n\nIn the ninth century came another effort to present the claims of right\nreason. The first man prominent in this was St. Agobard, Bishop of\nLyons, whom an eminent historian has well called the clearest head\nof his time. With the same insight which penetrated the fallacies and\nfollies of image worship, belief in witchcraft persecution, the ordeal,\nand the judicial duel, he saw the futility of this vast fabric of\ninterpretation, protested against the idea that the Divine Spirit\nextended its inspiration to the mere words of Scripture, and asked a\nquestion which has resounded through every generation since: \"If you\nonce begin such a system, who can measure the absurdity which will\nfollow?\"\n\nDuring the same century another opponent of this dominant system\nappeared: John Scotus Erigena. He contended that \"reason and authority\ncome alike from the one source of Divine Wisdom\"; that the fathers,\ngreat as their authority is, often contradict each other; and that, in\nlast resort, reason must be called in to decide between them.\n\nBut the evolution of unreason continued: Agobard was unheeded, and\nErigena placed under the ban by two councils--his work being condemned\nby a synod as a \"Commentum Diaboli.\" Four centuries later Honorius\nIII ordered it to be burned, as \"teeming with the venom of hereditary\ndepravity\"; and finally, after eight centuries, Pope Gregory XIII placed\nit on the Index, where, with so many other works which have done good\nservice to humanity, it remains to this day. Nor did Abelard, who, three\ncenturies after Agobard and Erigena, made an attempt in some respects\nlike theirs, have any better success: his fate at the hands of St.\nBernard and the Council of Sens the world knows by heart. Far more\nconsonant with the spirit of the universal Church was the teaching in\nthe twelfth century of the great Hugo of St. Victor, conveyed in these\nominous words, \"Learn first what is to be believed\" (Disce primo quod\ncredendum est), meaning thereby that one should first accept doctrines,\nand then find texts to confirm them.\n\nThese principles being dominant, the accretions to the enormous fabric\nof interpretation went steadily on. Typical is the fact that the\nVenerable Bede contributed to it the doctrine that, in the text\nmentioning Elkanah and his two wives, Elkanah means Christ and the two\nwives the Synagogue and the Church. Even such men as Alfred the Great\nand St. Thomas Aquinas were added to the forces at work in building\nabove the sacred books this prodigious structure of sophistry.\n\nPerhaps nothing shows more clearly the tenacity of the old system of\ninterpretation than the sermons of Savonarola. During the last decade of\nthe fifteenth century, just at the close of the medieval period, he was\nengaged in a life-and-death struggle at Florence. No man ever preached\nmore powerfully the gospel of righteousness; none ever laid more stress\non conduct; even Luther was not more zealous for reform or more careless\nof tradition; and yet we find the great Florentine apostle and martyr\nabsolutely tied fast to the old system of allegorical interpretation.\nThe autograph notes of his sermons, still preserved in his cell at San\nMarco, show this abundantly. Thus we find him attaching to the creation\nof grasses and plants on the third day an allegorical connection with\nthe \"multitude of the elect\" and with the \"sound doctrines of the\nChurch,\" and to the creation of land animals on the sixth day a similar\nrelation to \"the Jewish people\" and to \"Christians given up to things\nearthly.\"(468)\n\n\n     (468) For Agobard, see the Liber adversus Fredigisum, cap. xii; also\nReuter's Relig. Aufklarung im Mittelalter, vol. i, p. 24; also Poole,\nIllustrations of the History of Medieval Thought, London, 1884, pp. 38\net seq. For Erigena, see his De Divisione Naturae, lib. iv, cap. v; also\ni, cap. lxvi-lxxi; and for general account, see Ueberweg, History\nof Philosophy, New York, 1871, vol. i, pp. 358 et seq.; and for the\ntreatment of his work by the Church, see the edition of the Index under\nLeo XIII, 1881. For Abelard, see the Sic et Non, Prologue, Migne, vol.\niii, pp. 371-377. For Hugo of St. Victor, see Erudit. Didask., lib. vii,\nvi, 4, in Migne, clxxvi. For Savonarola's interpretations, see various\nreferences to his preaching in Villari's life of Savonarola, English\ntranslation, London, 1890, and especially the exceedingly interesting\ntable in the appendix to vol. i, chap. vii.\n\n\nThe revival of learning in the fifteenth century seemed likely to\nundermine this older structure.\n\nThen it was that Lorenzo Valla brought to bear on biblical research,\nfor the first time, the spirit of modern criticism. By truly scientific\nmethods he proved the famous \"Letter of Christ to Abgarus\" a forgery;\nthe \"Donation of Constantine,\" one of the great foundations of the\necclesiastical power in temporal things, a fraud; and the \"Apostles'\nCreed\" a creation which post-dated the apostles by several centuries.\nOf even more permanent influence was his work upon the New Testament,\nin which he initiated the modern method of comparing manuscripts to find\nwhat the sacred text really is. At an earlier or later period he would\ndoubtless have paid for his temerity with his life; fortunately, just\nat that time the ruling pontiff and his Contemporaries cared much for\nliterature and little for orthodoxy, and from their palaces he could bid\ndefiance to the Inquisition.\n\nWhile Valla thus initiated biblical criticism south of the Alps, a much\ngreater man began a more fruitful work in northern Europe. Erasmus, with\nhis edition of the New Testament, stands at the source of that great\nstream of modern research and thought which is doing so much to\nundermine and dissolve away the vast fabric of patristic and scholastic\ninterpretation.\n\nYet his efforts to purify the scriptural text seemed at first to\nencounter insurmountable difficulties, and one of these may stimulate\nreflection. He had found, what some others had found before him, that\nthe famous verse in the fifth chapter of the First Epistle General of\nSt. John, regarding the \"three witnesses,\" was an interpolation. Careful\nresearch through all the really important early manuscripts showed that\nit appeared in none of them. Even after the Bible had been corrected,\nin the eleventh and twelfth centuries, by Lanfranc, Archbishop of\nCanterbury, and by Nicholas, cardinal and librarian of the Roman Church,\n\"in accordance with the orthodox faith,\" the passage was still wanting\nin the more authoritative Latin manuscripts. There was not the slightest\ntenable ground for believing in the authenticity of the text; on the\ncontrary, it has been demonstrated that, after a universal silence\nof the orthodox fathers of the Church, of the ancient versions of the\nScriptures, and of all really important manuscripts, the verse first\nappeared in a Confession of Faith drawn up by an obscure zealot toward\nthe end of the fifth century. In a very mild exercise, then, of critical\njudgment, Erasmus omitted this text from the first two editions of\nhis Greek Testament as evidently spurious. A storm arose at once. In\nEngland, Lee, afterward Archbishop of York; in Spain, Stunica, one of\nthe editors of the Complutensian Polyglot; and in France, Bude, Syndic\nof the Sorbonne, together with a vast army of monks in England and\non the Continent, attacked him ferociously. He was condemned by the\nUniversity of Paris, and various propositions of his were declared to\nbe heretical and impious. Fortunately, the worst persecutors could not\nreach him; otherwise they might have treated him as they treated his\ndisciple, Berquin, whom in 1529 they burned at Paris.\n\nThe fate of this spurious text throws light into the workings of human\nnature in its relations to sacred literature. Although Luther omitted it\nfrom his translation of the New Testament, and kept it out of every copy\npublished during his lifetime, and although at a later period the most\neminent Christian scholars showed that it had no right to a place in the\nBible, it was, after Luther's death, replaced in the German translation,\nand has been incorporated into all important editions of it, save one,\nsince the beginning of the seventeenth century. So essential was it\nfound in maintaining the dominant theology that, despite the fact that\nSir Isaac Newton, Richard Porson, the nineteenth-century revisers, and\nall other eminent authorities have rejected it, the Anglican Church\nstill retains it in its Lectionary, and the Scotch Church continues to\nuse it in the Westminster Catechism, as a main support of the doctrine\nof the Trinity.\n\nNor were other new truths presented by Erasmus better received. His\nstatement that \"some of the epistles ascribed to St. Paul are certainly\nnot his,\" which is to-day universally acknowledged as a truism, also\naroused a storm. For generations, then, his work seemed vain.\n\nOn the coming in of the Reformation the great structure of belief in the\nliteral and historical correctness of every statement in the Scriptures,\nin the profound allegorical meanings of the simplest texts, and even\nin the divine origin of the vowel punctuation, towered more loftily and\ngrew more rapidly than ever before. The Reformers, having cast off the\nauthority of the Pope and of the universal Church, fell back all the\nmore upon the infallibility of the sacred books. The attitude of Luther\ntoward this great subject was characteristic. As a rule, he adhered\ntenaciously to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures; his\nargument against Copernicus is a fair example of his reasoning in this\nrespect; but, with the strong good sense which characterized him, he\nfrom time to time broke away from the received belief. Thus, he took\nthe liberty of understanding certain passages in the Old Testament in a\ndifferent sense from that given them by the New Testament, and declared\nSt. Paul's allegorical use of the story of Sarah and Hagar \"too unsound\nto stand the test.\" He also emphatically denied that the Epistle to the\nHebrews was written by St. Paul, and he did this in the exercise of\na critical judgment upon internal evidence. His utterance as to the\nEpistle of St. James became famous. He announced to the Church: \"I do\nnot esteem this an apostolic, epistle; I will not have it in my\nBible among the canonical books,\" and he summed up his opinion in his\nwell-known allusion to it as \"an epistle of straw.\"\n\nEmboldened by him, the gentle spirit of Melanchthon, while usually\ntaking the Bible very literally, at times revolted; but this was not due\nto any want of loyalty to the old method of interpretation: whenever the\nwildest and most absurd system of exegesis seemed necessary to support\nany part of the reformed doctrine, Luther and Melanchthon unflinchingly\ndeveloped it. Both of them held firmly to the old dictum of Hugo of St.\nVictor, which, as we have seen, was virtually that one must first accept\nthe doctrine, and then find scriptural warrant for it. Very striking\nexamples of this were afforded in the interpretation by Luther and\nMelanchthon of certain alleged marvels of their time, and one out of\nseveral of these may be taken as typical of their methods.\n\nIn 1523 Luther and Melanchthon jointly published a work under the title\nDer Papstesel--interpreting the significance of a strange, ass-like\nmonster which, according to a popular story, had been found floating\nin the Tiber some time before. This book was illustrated by startling\npictures, and both text and pictures were devoted to proving that this\nmonster was \"a sign from God,\" indicating the doom of the papacy. This\ntreatise by the two great founders of German Protestantism pointed out\nthat the ass's head signified the Pope himself; \"for,\" said they, \"as\nwell as an ass's head is suited to a human body, so well is the Pope\nsuited to be head over the Church.\" This argument was clinched by a\nreference to Exodus. The right hand of the monster, said to be like an\nelephant's foot, they made to signify the spiritual rule of the Pope,\nsince \"with it he tramples upon all the weak\": this they proved from\nthe book of Daniel and the Second Epistle to Timothy. The monster's left\nhand, which was like the hand of a man, they declared to mean the Pope's\nsecular rule, and they found passages to support this view in Daniel\nand St. Luke. The right foot, which was like the foot of an ox, they\ndeclared to typify the servants of the spiritual power; and proved this\nby a citation from St. Matthew. The left foot, like a griffin's claw,\nthey made to typify the servants of the temporal power of the Pope,\nand the highly developed breasts and various other members, cardinals,\nbishops, priests, and monks, \"whose life is eating, drinking, and\nunchastity\": to prove this they cited passages from Second Timothy and\nPhilippians. The alleged fish-scales on the arms, legs, and neck of the\nmonster they made to typify secular princes and lords; \"since,\" as they\nsaid, \"in St. Matthew and Job the sea typifies the world, and fishes\nmen.\" The old man's head at the base of the monster's spine they\ninterpreted to mean \"the abolition and end of the papacy,\" and proved\nthis from Hebrews and Daniel. The dragon which opens his mouth in the\nrear and vomits fire, \"refers to the terrible, virulent bulls and books\nwhich the Pope and his minions are now vomiting forth into the world.\"\nThe two great Reformers then went on to insist that, since this monster\nwas found at Rome, it could refer to no person but the Pope; \"for,\"\nthey said, \"God always sends his signs in the places where their meaning\napplies.\" Finally, they assured the world that the monster in general\nclearly signified that the papacy was then near its end. To this\ndevelopment of interpretation Luther and Melanchthon especially devoted\nthemselves; the latter by revising this exposition of the prodigy, and\nthe former by making additions to a new edition. Such was the success of\nthis kind of interpretation that Luther, hearing that a monstrous calf\nhad been found at Freiburg, published a treatise upon it--showing, by\ncitations from the books of Exodus, Kings, the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel,\nand the Gospel of St. John, that this new monster was the especial work\nof the devil, but full of meaning in regard to the questions at issue\nbetween the Reformers and the older Church.\n\nThe other main branch of the Reformed Church appeared for a time to\nestablish a better system. Calvin's strong logic seemed at one period\nlikely to tear his adherents away from the older method; but the\nevolution of scholasticism continued, and the influence of the German\nreformers prevailed. At every theological centre came an amazing\ndevelopment of interpretation.\n\nEminent Lutheran divines in the seventeenth century, like Gerhard,\nCalovius, Coccerus, and multitudes of others, wrote scores of quartos\nto further this system, and the other branch of the Protestant Church\nemulated their example. The pregnant dictum of St. Augustine--\"Greater\nis the authority of Scripture than all human capacity\"--was steadily\ninsisted upon, and, toward the close of the seventeenth century,\nVoetius, the renowned professor at Utrecht, declared, \"Not a word is\ncontained in the Holy Scriptures which is not in the strictest sense\ninspired, the very punctuation not excepted\"; and this declaration was\nechoed back from multitudes of pulpits, theological chairs, synods,\nand councils. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to find what the\n\"authority of Scripture\" really was. To the greater number of Protestant\necclesiastics it meant the authority of any meaning in the text which\nthey had the wit to invent and the power to enforce.\n\nTo increase this vast confusion, came, in the older branch of the\nChurch, the idea of the divine inspiration of the Latin translation\nof the Bible ascribed to St. Jerome--the Vulgate. It was insisted by\nleading Catholic authorities that this was as completely a product\nof divine inspiration as was the Hebrew original. Strong men arose to\ninsist even that, where the Hebrew and the Latin differed, the Hebrew\nshould be altered to fit Jerome's mistranslation, as the latter, having\nbeen made under the new dispensation, must be better than that made\nunder the old. Even so great a man as Cardinal Bellarmine exerted\nhimself in vain against this new tide of unreason.(469)\n\n\n     (469) For Valla, see various sources already named; and for an\nespecially interesting account, Symond's Renaissance in Italy, the\nRevival of Learning, pp. 260-269; and for the opinion of the best\ncontemporary judge, see Erasmus, Opera, Leyden, 1703, tom. iii, p. 98.\nFor Erasmus and his opponents, see Life of Erasmus, by Butler, London,\n1825, pp. 179-182; but especially, for the general subject, Bishop\nCreighton's History of the Papacy during the Reformation. For the attack\nby Bude and the Sorbonne and the burning of Berquin, see Drummond, Life\nand character of Erasmus, vol. ii, pp. 220-223; also pp. 230-239. As\nto the text of the Three Witnesses, see Gibbon, Decline and Fall of\nthe Roman Empire, chap. xxxvi, notes 116-118; also Dean Milman's note\nthereupon. For a full and learned statement of the evidence against\nthe verse, see Porson's Letters to Travis, London, 1790, in which an\nelaborate discussion of all the MSS. is given. See also Jowett in Essays\nand Reviews, p. 307. For a very full and impartial history of the long\ncontroversy over this passage, see Charles Butler's Horae Biblicae,\nreprinted in Jared Sparks's Theological Essays and Tracts, vol. ii. For\nLuther's ideas of interpretation, see his Sammtliche Schriften, Walch\nedition, vol. i, p. 1199, vol. ii, p. 1758, vol. viii, p. 2140; for some\nof his more free views, vol. xiv, p. 472, vol. vi, p. 121, vol. xi, p.\n1448, vol. xii, p. 830; also Tholuck, Doctrine of Inspiration, Boston,\n1867, citing the Colloquia, Frankfort, 1571, vol. ii, p. 102; also\nthe Vorreden zu der deutschen Bibelubersetzung, in Walch's edition, as\nabove, vol. xiv, especially pp. 94, 98, and 146-150. As to Melanchthon,\nsee especially his Loci Communes, 1521; and as to the enormous growth\nof commentaries in the generations immediately following, see Charles\nBeard, Hibbert Lectures for 1883, on the Reformation, especially the\nadmirable chapter on Protestant Scholasticism; also Archdeacon Farrar,\nhistory of Interpretation. For the Papstesel, etc., see Luther's\nSammtliche Schriften, edit. Walch, vol. xiv, pp. 2403 et seq.; also\nMelanchthon's Opera, edit. Bretschneider, vol. xx, pp. 665 et seq.\nIn the White Library of Cornell University will be found an original\nedition of the book, with engravings of the monster. For the Monchkalb,\nsee Luther's works as above, vol. xix, pp. 2416 et seq. For the spirit\nof Calvin in interpretation, see Farrar, ans especially H. P. Smith, D.\nD., Inspiration and Inerrancy, chap. iv, and the very brilliant essay\nforming chap. iii of the same work, by L. J. Evans, pp. 66 and 67,\nnote. For the attitude of the older Church toward the Vulgate, see\nPallavicini, Histoire du Concile de Trente, Montrouge, 1844, tome i, pp\n19,20; but especially Symonds, The Catholic Reaction, vol. i, pp. 226 et\nseq. As to a demand for the revision of the Hebrew Bible to correct its\ndifferences from the Vulgate, see Emanuel Deutsch's Literary Remains,\nNew York, 1874, p. 9. For the work and spirit of Calovius and other\ncommentators immediately following the Reformation, see Farrar, as\nabove; also Beard, Schaff, and Hertzog, Geschichte des alten Testaments\nin der christlichen Kirche, pp. 527 et seq. As to extreme views of\nVoetius and others, see Tholuck, as above. For the Formula Concensus\nHelvetica, which in 1675 affirmed the inspiration of the vowel points,\nsee Schaff, Creeds.\n\n\nNor was a fanatical adhesion to the mere letter of the sacred text\nconfined to western Europe. About the middle of the seventeenth century,\nin the reign of Alexis, father of Peter the Great, Nikon, Patriarch of\nthe Russian Greek Church, attempted to correct the Slavonic Scriptures\nand service-books. They were full of interpolations due to ignorance,\ncarelessness, or zeal, and in order to remedy this state of the texts\nNikon procured a number of the best Greek and Slavonic manuscripts, set\nthe leading and most devout scholars he could find at work upon them,\nand caused Russian Church councils in 1655 and 1666 to promulgate the\nbooks thus corrected.\n\nBut the same feelings which have wrought so strongly against our\nnineteenth-century revision of the Bible acted even more forcibly\nagainst that revision in the seventeenth century. Straightway great\nmasses of the people, led by monks and parish priests, rose in revolt.\nThe fact that the revisers had written in the New Testament the name of\nJesus correctly, instead of following the old wrong orthography, aroused\nthe wildest fanaticism. The monks of the great convent of Solovetsk,\nwhen the new books were sent them, cried in terror: \"Woe, woe! what\nhave you done with the Son of God?\" They then shut their gates, defying\npatriarch, council, and Czar, until, after a struggle lasting seven\nyears, their monastery was besieged and taken by an imperial army. Hence\narose the great sect of the \"Old Believers,\" lasting to this day, and\nfanatically devoted to the corrupt readings of the old text.(470)\n\n\n     (470) The present writer, visiting Moscow in the spring of 1894,\nwas presented by Count Leo Tolstoi to one of the most eminent and\ninfluential members of the sect of \"Old Believers,\" which dates from\nthe reform of Nikon. Nothing could exceed the fervor with which this\nvenerable man, standing in the chapel of his superb villa, expatiated on\nthe horrors of making the sign of the cross with three fingers instead\nof two. His argument was that the TWO fingers, as used by the \"Old\nBelievers,\" typify the divine and human nature of our Lord, and hence\nthat the use of them is strictly correct; whereas signing with THREE\nfingers, representing the blessed Trinity, is \"virtually to crucify all\nthree persons of the Godhead afresh.\" Not less cogent were his arguments\nregarding the immense value of the old text of Scripture as compared\nwith the new. For the revolt against Nikon and his reforms, see Rambaud,\nHistory of Russia, vol. i, pp. 414-416; also Wallace, Russia, vol. ii,\npp. 307-309; also Leroy-Beaulieu, L'Empire des Tsars, vol. iii, livre\niii.\n\n\nStrange to say, on the development of Scripture interpretation, largely\nin accordance with the old methods, wrought, about the beginning of the\neighteenth century, Sir Isaac Newton.\n\nIt is hard to believe that from the mind which produced the Principia,\nand which broke through the many time-honoured beliefs regarding the\ndates and formation of scriptural books, could have come his discussions\nregarding the prophecies; still, at various points even in this work,\nhis power appears. From internal evidence he not only discarded the text\nof the Three Witnesses, but he decided that the Pentateuch must have\nbeen made up from several books; that Genesis was not written until\nthe reign of Saul; that the books of Kings and Chronicles were probably\ncollected by Ezra; and, in a curious anticipation of modern criticism,\nthat the book of Psalms and the prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel were\neach written by various authors at various dates. But the old belief in\nprophecy as prediction was too strong for him, and we find him applying\nhis great powers to the relation of the details given by the prophets\nand in the Apocalypse to the history of mankind since unrolled,\nand tracing from every statement in prophetic literature its exact\nfulfilment even in the most minute particulars.\n\nBy the beginning of the eighteenth century the structure of scriptural\ninterpretation had become enormous. It seemed destined to hide forever\nthe real character of our sacred literature and to obscure the great\nlight which Christianity had brought into the world. The Church, Eastern\nand Western, Catholic and Protestant, was content to sit in its shadow,\nand the great divines of all branches of the Church reared every sort\nof fantastic buttress to strengthen or adorn it. It seemed to be founded\nfor eternity; and yet, at this very time when it appeared the strongest,\na current of thought was rapidly dissolving away its foundations, and\npreparing that wreck and ruin of the whole fabric which is now, at the\nclose of the nineteenth century, going on so rapidly.\n\nThe account of the movement thus begun is next to be given.(471)\n\n\n     (471) For Newton's boldness in textual criticism, compared with his\ncredulity as to the literal fulfilment of prophecy, see his Observations\nupon the Prophesies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John, in his\nworks, edited by Horsley, London, 1785, vol. v, pp. 297-491.\n\n\n\n\nII. BEGINNINGS OF SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION.\n\nAt the base of the vast structure of the older scriptural interpretation\nwere certain ideas regarding the first five books of the Old Testament.\nIt was taken for granted that they had been dictated by the Almighty\nto Moses about fifteen hundred years before our era; that some parts of\nthem, indeed, had been written by the corporeal finger of Jehovah, and\nthat all parts gave not merely his thoughts but his exact phraseology.\nIt was also held, virtually by the universal Church, that while\nevery narrative or statement in these books is a precise statement of\nhistorical or scientific fact, yet that the entire text contains\nvast hidden meanings. Such was the rule: the exceptions made by a few\ninterpreters here and there only confirmed it. Even the indifference\nof St. Jerome to the doctrine of Mosaic authorship did not prevent its\nripening into a dogma.\n\nThe book of Genesis was universally held to be an account, not only\ndivinely comprehensive but miraculously exact, of the creation and of\nthe beginnings of life on the earth; an account to which all discoveries\nin every branch of science must, under pains and penalties, be made to\nconform. In English-speaking lands this has lasted until our own time:\nthe most eminent of recent English biologists has told us how in every\npath of natural science he has, at some stage in his career, come across\na barrier labelled \"No thoroughfare Moses.\"\n\nA favourite subject of theological eloquence was the perfection of the\nPentateuch, and especially of Genesis, not only as a record of the past,\nbut as a revelation of the future.\n\nThe culmination of this view in the Protestant Church was the Pansophia\nMosaica of Pfeiffer, a Lutheran general superintendent, or bishop, in\nnorthern Germany, near the beginning of the seventeenth century. He\ndeclared that the text of Genesis \"must be received strictly\"; that \"it\ncontains all knowledge, human and divine\"; that \"twenty-eight articles\nof the Augsburg Confession are to be found in it\"; that \"it is an\narsenal of arguments against all sects and sorts of atheists, pagans,\nJews, Turks, Tartars, papists, Calvinists, Socinians, and Baptists\";\n\"the source of all sciences and arts, including law, medicine,\nphilosophy, and rhetoric\"; \"the source and essence of all histories and\nof all professions, trades, and works\"; \"an exhibition of all virtues\nand vices\"; \"the origin of all consolation.\"\n\nThis utterance resounded through Germany from pulpit to pulpit, growing\nin strength and volume, until a century later it was echoed back by\nHuet, the eminent bishop and commentator of France. He cited a hundred\nauthors, sacred and profane, to prove that Moses wrote the Pentateuch;\nand not only this, but that from the Jewish lawgiver came the heathen\ntheology--that Moses was, in fact, nearly the whole pagan pantheon\nrolled into one, and really the being worshipped under such names as\nBacchus, Adonis, and Apollo.(472)\n\n\n     (472) For the passage from Huxley regarding Mosaic barriers to modern\nthought, see his Essays, recently published. For Pfeiffer, see Zoeckler,\nTheologie und Naturwissenschaft, vol. i, pp. 688, 689. For St. Jerome's\nindifference as to the Mosaic authorship, see the first of the excellent\nSketches of the Pentateuch Criticism, by the Rev. S. J. Curtiss, in the\nBibliotheca Sacra for January, 1884. For Huet, see also Curtiss, ibid.\n\n\nAbout the middle of the twelfth century came, so far as the world now\nknows, the first gainsayer of this general theory. Then it was that Aben\nEzra, the greatest biblical scholar of the Middle Ages, ventured\nvery discreetly to call attention to certain points in the Pentateuch\nincompatible with the belief that the whole of it had been written by\nMoses and handed down in its original form. His opinion was based upon\nthe well-known texts which have turned all really eminent biblical\nscholars in the nineteenth century from the old view by showing the\nMosaic authorship of the five books in their present form to be clearly\ndisproved by the books themselves; and, among these texts, accounts\nof Moses' own death and burial, as well as statements based on names,\nevents, and conditions which only came into being ages after the time of\nMoses.\n\nBut Aben Ezra had evidently no aspirations for martyrdom; he fathered\nthe idea upon a rabbi of a previous generation, and, having veiled his\nstatement in an enigma, added the caution, \"Let him who understands hold\nhis tongue.\"(473)\n\n\n     (473) For the texts referred to by Aben Ezra as incompatible with the\nMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, see Meyer, Geschichte der Exegese,\nvol. i, pp. 85-88; and for a pithy short account, Moore's introduction\nto The Genesis of Genesis, by B. W. Bacon, Hartford, 1893, p. 23; also\nCurtiss, as above. For a full exhibition of the absolute incompatibility\nof these texts with the Mosaic authorship, etc., see The Higher\nCriticism of the Pentateuch, by C. A. Briggs, D. D., New York, 1893,\nespecially chap. iv; also Robertson Smith, art. Bible, in Encycl. Brit.\n\n\nFor about four centuries the learned world followed the prudent rabbi's\nadvice, and then two noted scholars, one of them a Protestant, the other\na Catholic, revived his idea. The first of these, Carlstadt, insisted\nthat the authorship of the Pentateuch was unknown and unknowable; the\nother, Andreas Maes, expressed his opinion in terms which would not now\noffend the most orthodox, that the Pentateuch had been edited by Ezra,\nand had received in the process sundry divinely inspired words and\nphrases to clear the meaning. Both these innovators were dealt\nwith promptly: Carlstadt was, for this and other troublesome ideas,\nsuppressed with the applause of the Protestant Church; and the book of\nMaes was placed by the older Church on the Index.\n\nBut as we now look back over the Revival of Learning, the Age of\nDiscovery, and the Reformation, we can see clearly that powerful as the\nolder Church then was, and powerful as the Reformed Church was to be,\nthere was at work something far more mighty than either or than both;\nand this was a great law of nature--the law of evolution through\ndifferentiation. Obedient to this law there now began to arise, both\nwithin the Church and without it, a new body of scholars--not so much\ntheologians as searchers for truth by scientific methods. Some, like\nCusa, were ecclesiastics; some, like Valla, Erasmus, and the Scaligers,\nwere not such in any real sense; but whether in holy orders, really,\nnominally, or not at all, they were, first of all, literary and\nscientific investigators.\n\nDuring the sixteenth century a strong impulse was given to more thorough\nresearch by several very remarkable triumphs of the critical method\nas developed by this new class of men, and two of these ought here to\nreceive attention on account of their influence upon the whole after\ncourse of human thought.\n\nFor many centuries the Decretals bearing the great name of Isidore had\nbeen cherished as among the most valued muniments of the Church. They\ncontained what claimed to be a mass of canons, letters of popes, decrees\nof councils, and the like, from the days of the apostles down to the\neighth century--all supporting at important points the doctrine, the\ndiscipline, the ceremonial, and various high claims of the Church and\nits hierarchy.\n\nBut in the fifteenth century that sturdy German thinker, Cardinal\nNicholas of Cusa, insisted on examining these documents and on applying\nto them the same thorough research and patient thought which led him,\neven before Copernicus, to detect the error of the Ptolemaic astronomy.\n\nAs a result, he avowed his scepticism regarding this pious literature;\nother close thinkers followed him in investigating it, and it was\nsoon found a tissue of absurd anachronisms, with endless clashing and\nconfusion of events and persons.\n\nFor a time heroic attempts were made by Church authorities to cover up\nthese facts. Scholars revealing them were frowned upon, even persecuted,\nand their works placed upon the Index; scholars explaining them\naway--the \"apologists\" or \"reconcilers\" of that day--were rewarded with\nChurch preferment, one of them securing for a very feeble treatise\na cardinal's hat. But all in vain; these writings were at length\nacknowledged by all scholars of note, Catholic and Protestant, to be\nmainly a mass of devoutly cunning forgeries.\n\nWhile the eyes of scholars were thus opened as never before to the skill\nof early Church zealots in forging documents useful to ecclesiasticism,\nanother discovery revealed their equal skill in forging documents useful\nto theology.\n\nFor more than a thousand years great stress had been laid by theologians\nupon the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, the Athenian\nconvert of St. Paul. Claiming to come from one so near the great\napostle, they were prized as a most precious supplement to Holy Writ.\nA belief was developed that when St. Paul had returned to earth,\nafter having been \"caught up to the third heaven,\" he had revealed to\nDionysius the things he had seen. Hence it was that the varied pictures\ngiven in these writings of the heavenly hierarchy and the angelic\nministers of the Almighty took strong hold upon the imagination of the\nuniversal Church: their theological statements sank deeply into\nthe hearts and minds of the Mystics of the twelfth century and the\nPlatonists of the fifteenth; and the ten epistles they contained,\naddressed to St. John, to Titus, to Polycarp, and others of the earliest\nperiod, were considered treasures of sacred history. An Emperor of\nthe East had sent these writings to an Emperor of the West as the most\nprecious of imperial gifts. Scotus Erigena had translated them; St.\nThomas Aquinas had expounded them; Dante had glorified them; Albert\nthe Great had claimed that they were virtually given by St. Paul and\ninspired by the Holy Ghost. Their authenticity was taken for granted by\nfathers, doctors, popes, councils, and the universal Church.\n\nBut now, in the glow of the Renascence, all this treasure was found to\nbe but dross. Investigators in the old Church and in the new joined in\nproving that the great mass of it was spurious.\n\nTo say nothing of other evidences, it failed to stand the simplest of\nall tests, for these writings constantly presupposed institutions and\nreferred to events of much later date than the time of Dionysius; they\nwere at length acknowledged by all authorities worthy of the name,\nCatholic as well as Protestant, to be simply--like the Isidorian\nDecretals--pious frauds.\n\nThus arose an atmosphere of criticism very different from the atmosphere\nof literary docility and acquiescence of the \"Ages of Faith\"; thus it\ncame that great scholars in all parts of Europe began to realize, as\nnever before, the part which theological skill and ecclesiastical zeal\nhad taken in the development of spurious sacred literature; thus was\nstimulated a new energy in research into all ancient documents, no\nmatter what their claims. To strengthen this feeling and to intensify\nthe stimulating qualities of this new atmosphere came, as we have seen,\nthe researches and revelations of Valla regarding the forged Letter of\nChrist to Abgarus, the fraudulent Donation of Constantine, and the late\ndate of the Apostles' Creed; and, to give this feeling direction toward\nthe Hebrew and Christian sacred books, came the example of Erasmus.(474)\n\n\n     (474) For very fair statements regarding the great forged documents of\nthe Middle Ages, see Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, articles\nDionysius the Areopagite and False Decretals, and in the latter the\ncurious acknowledgment that the mass of pseudo-Isidorian Decretals \"is\nwhat we now call a forgery.\"\n\nFor the derivation of Dionysius's ideas from St. Paul, and for the idea\nof inspiration attributed to him, see Albertus Magnus, Opera Omnia, vol.\nxiii, early chapters and chap. vi. For very interesting details on this\ngeneral subject, see Dollinger, Das Papstthum, chap. ii; also his Fables\nrespecting the Popes of the Middle Ages, translated by Plummer and H. B.\nSmith, part i, chap. v. Of the exposure of these works, see Farrar, as\nabove, pp. 254, 255; also Beard, Hibbert Lectures, pp. 4, 354. For the\nFalse Decretals, see Milman, History of Latin Christianity, vol. ii, pp.\n373 et seq. For the great work of the pseudo-Dionysius, see ibid., vol.\niii, p. 352, and vol. vi, pp. 402 et seq., and Canon Westcott's article\non Dionysius the Areopagite in vol. v of the Contemporary Review; also\nthe chapters on Astronomy in this work.\n\n\nNaturally, then, in this new atmosphere the bolder scholars of Europe\nsoon began to push more vigorously the researches begun centuries before\nby Aben Ezra, and the next efforts of these men were seen about the\nmiddle of the seventeenth century, when Hobbes, in his Leviathan, and\nLa Pevrere, in his Preadamites, took them up and developed them still\nfurther. The result came speedily. Hobbes, for this and other sins, was\nput under the ban, even by the political party which sorely needed him,\nand was regarded generally as an outcast; while La Peyrere, for this and\nother heresies, was thrown into prison by the Grand Vicar of Mechlin,\nand kept there until he fully retracted: his book was refuted by seven\ntheologians within a year after its appearance, and within a generation\nthirty-six elaborate answers to it had appeared: the Parliament of Paris\nordered it to be burned by the hangman.\n\nIn 1670 came an utterance vastly more important, by a man far greater\nthan any of these--the Tractatus Thrologico-Politicus of Spinoza.\nReverently but firmly he went much more deeply into the subject.\nSuggesting new arguments and recasting the old, he summed up all with\njudicial fairness, and showed that Moses could not have been the author\nof the Pentateuch in the form then existing; that there had been glosses\nand revisions; that the biblical books had grown up as a literature;\nthat, though great truths are to be found in them, and they are to be\nregarded as a divine revelation, the old claims of inerrancy for them\ncan not be maintained; that in studying them men had been misled by\nmistaking human conceptions for divine meanings; that, while prophets\nhave been inspired, the prophetic faculty has not been the dowry of the\nJewish people alone; that to look for exact knowledge of natural and\nspiritual phenomena in the sacred books is an utter mistake; and that\nthe narratives of the Old and New Testaments, while they surpass those\nof profane history, differ among themselves not only in literary merit,\nbut in the value of the doctrines they inculcate. As to the authorship\nof the Pentateuch, he arrived at the conclusion that it was written long\nafter Moses, but that Moses may have written some books from which\nit was compiled--as, for example, those which are mentioned in the\nScriptures, the Book of the Wars of God, the Book of the Covenant,\nand the like--and that the many repetitions and contradictions in the\nvarious books show a lack of careful editing as well as a variety of\noriginal sources. Spinoza then went on to throw light into some other\nbooks of the Old and New Testaments, and added two general statements\nwhich have proved exceedingly serviceable, for they contain the germs of\nall modern broad churchmanship; and the first of them gave the formula\nwhich was destined in our own time to save to the Anglican Church a\nlarge number of her noblest sons: this was, that \"sacred Scripture\nCONTAINS the Word of God, and in so far as it contains it is\nincorruptible\"; the second was, that \"error in speculative doctrine is\nnot impious.\"\n\nThough published in various editions, the book seemed to produce little\neffect upon the world at that time; but its result to Spinoza himself\nwas none the less serious. Though so deeply religious that Novalis\nspoke of him as \"a God-intoxicated man,\" and Schleiermacher called him a\n\"saint,\" he had been, for the earlier expression of some of the opinions\nit contained, abhorred as a heretic both by Jews and Christians: from\nthe synagogue he was cut off by a public curse, and by the Church he was\nnow regarded as in some sort a forerunner of Antichrist. For all this,\nhe showed no resentment, but devoted himself quietly to his studies, and\nto the simple manual labour by which he supported himself; declined\nall proffered honours, among them a professorship at Heidelberg; found\npleasure only in the society of a few friends as gentle and affectionate\nas himself; and died contentedly, without seeing any widespread effect\nof his doctrine other than the prevailing abhorrence of himself.\n\nPerhaps in all the seventeenth century there was no man whom Jesus of\nNazareth would have more deeply loved, and no life which he would have\nmore warmly approved; yet down to a very recent period this hatred for\nSpinoza has continued. When, about 1880, it was proposed to erect a\nmonument to him at Amsterdam, discourses were given in churches and\nsynagogues prophesying the wrath of Heaven upon the city for such a\nprofanation; and when the monument was finished, the police were obliged\nto exert themselves to prevent injury to the statue and to the eminent\nscholars who unveiled it.\n\nBut the ideas of Spinoza at last secured recognition. They had sunk\ndeeply into the hearts and minds of various leaders of thought, and,\nmost important of all, into the heart and mind of Lessing; he brought\nthem to bear in his treatise on the Education of the World, as well as\nin his drama, Nathan the Wise, and both these works have spoken with\npower to every generation since.\n\nIn France, also, came the same healthful evolution of thought. For\ngenerations scholars had known that multitudes of errors had crept into\nthe sacred text. Robert Stephens had found over two thousand variations\nin the oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament, and in 1633 Jean Morin,\na priest of the Oratory, pointed out clearly many of the most glaring\nof these. Seventeen years later, in spite of the most earnest Protestant\nefforts to suppress his work, Cappellus gave forth his Critica Sacra,\ndemonstrating not only that the vowel pointing of Scripture was not\ndivinely inspired, but that the Hebrew text itself, from which\nthe modern translations were made, is full of errors due to the\ncarelessness, ignorance, and doctrinal zeal of early scribes, and that\nthere had clearly been no miraculous preservation of the \"original\nautographs\" of the sacred books.\n\nWhile orthodox France was under the uneasiness and alarm thus caused,\nappeared a Critical History of the Old Testament by Richard Simon, a\npriest of the Oratory. He was a thoroughly religious man and an acute\nscholar, whose whole purpose was to develop truths which he believed\nhealthful to the Church and to mankind. But he denied that Moses was the\nauthor of the Pentateuch, and exhibited the internal evidence, now so\nwell known, that the books were composed much later by various persons,\nand edited later still. He also showed that other parts of the Old\nTestament had been compiled from older sources, and attacked the\ntime-honoured theory that Hebrew was the primitive language of mankind.\nThe whole character of his book was such that in these days it would\npass, on the whole, as conservative and orthodox; it had been approved\nby the censor in 1678, and printed, when the table of contents and\na page of the preface were shown to Bossuet. The great bishop and\ntheologian was instantly aroused; he pronounced the work \"a mass of\nimpieties and a bulwark of irreligion\"; his biographer tells us that,\nalthough it was Holy Thursday, the bishop, in spite of the solemnity of\nthe day, hastened at once to the Chancellor Le Tellier, and secured an\norder to stop the publication of the book and to burn the whole edition\nof it. Fortunately, a few copies were rescued, and a few years later\nthe work found a new publisher in Holland; yet not until there had been\nattached to it, evidently by some Protestant divine of authority, an\nessay warning the reader against its dangerous doctrines. Two years\nlater a translation was published in England.\n\nThis first work of Simon was followed by others, in which he sought, in\nthe interest of scriptural truth, to throw a new and purer light upon\nour sacred literature; but Bossuet proved implacable. Although unable\nto suppress all of Simon's works, he was able to drive him from the\nOratory, and to bring him into disrepute among the very men who ought to\nhave been proud of him as Frenchmen and thankful to him as Christians.\n\nBut other scholars of eminence were now working in this field, and chief\namong them Le Clerc. Virtually driven out of Geneva, he took refuge\nat Amsterdam, and there published a series of works upon the Hebrew\nlanguage, the interpretation of Scripture, and the like. In these\nhe combated the prevalent idea that Hebrew was the primitive tongue,\nexpressed the opinion that in the plural form of the word used in\nGenesis for God, \"Elohim,\" there is a trace of Chaldean polytheism, and,\nin his discussion on the serpent who tempted Eve, curiously anticipated\nmodern geological and zoological ideas by quietly confessing his\ninability to see how depriving the serpent of feet and compelling him to\ngo on his belly could be punishment--since all this was natural to the\nanimal. He also ventured quasi-scientific explanations of the confusion\nof tongues at Babel, the destruction of Sodom, the conversion of Lot's\nwife into a pillar of salt, and the dividing of the Red Sea. As to\nthe Pentateuch in general, he completely rejected the idea that it was\nwritten by Moses. But his most permanent gift to the thinking world was\nhis answer to those who insisted upon the reference by Christ and his\napostles to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch. The answer became a\nformula which has proved effective from his day to ours: \"Our Lord and\nhis apostles did not come into this world to teach criticism to the\nJews, and hence spoke according to the common opinion.\"\n\nAgainst all these scholars came a theological storm, but it raged most\npitilessly against Le Clerc. Such renowned theologians as Carpzov in\nGermany, Witsius in Holland, and Huet in France berated him unmercifully\nand overwhelmed him with assertions which still fill us with wonder.\nThat of Huet, attributing the origin of pagan as well as Christian\ntheology to Moses, we have already seen; but Carpzov showed that\nProtestantism could not be outdone by Catholicism when he declared, in\nthe face of all modern knowledge, that not only the matter but the exact\nform and words of the Bible had been divinely transmitted to the modern\nworld free from all error.\n\nAt this Le Clerc stood aghast, and finally stammered out a sort of half\nrecantation.(475)\n\n\n     (475) For Carlstadt, and Luther's dealings with him on various accounts,\nsee Meyer, Geschichte der exegese, vol. ii, pp. 373, 397. As to the\nvalue of Maes's work in general, see Meyer, vol. ii, p. 125; and as\nto the sort of work in question, ibid., vol. iii, p. 425, note. For\nCarlstadt, see also Farrar, History of Interpretation, and Moore's\nintroduction, as above. For Hobbes's view that the Pentateuch was\nwritten long after Moses's day, see the Leviathan, vol. iii, p. 33. For\nLa Peyrere's view, see especially his Prae-Adamitae, lib. iv, chap. ii,\nalso lib. ii, passim; also Lecky, Rationalism in Europe, vol. i, p. 294;\nalso interesting points in Bayle's Dictionary. For Spinoza's view,\nsee the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, chaps. ii and iii, and for\nthe persecution, see the various biographies. Details regarding the\ndemonstration against the unveiling of his statue were given to the\npresent writer at the time by Berthold Auerbach, who took part in the\nceremony. For Morinus and Cappellus, see Farrar, as above, p. 387\nand note. For Richard Simon, see his Histoire Critique de l'Ancien\nTestament, liv. i, chaps. ii, iii, iv, v, and xiii. For his denial\nof the prevailing theory regarding Hebrew, see liv. i, chap. iv. For\nMorinus (Morin) and his work, see the Biog. Univ. and Nouvelle Biog.\nGenerale; also Curtiss. For Bousset's opposition to Simon, see the\nHistoire de Bousser in the Oeuvres de Bousset, Paris, 1846, tome xii,\npp. 330, 331; also t. x, p. 378; also sundry attacks in various volumes.\nIt is interesting to note that among the chief instigators of the\npersecution were the Port-Royalists, upon whose persecution afterward by\nthe Jesuits so much sympathy has been lavished by the Protestant world.\nFor Le Clerc, see especially his Pentateuchus, Prolegom, dissertat.\ni; also Com. in Genes., cap. vi-viii. For a translation of selected\npassages on the points noted, see Twelve Dissertations out of Monsieur\nLeClerc's Genesis, done out of Latin by Mr. Brown, London, 1696; also Le\nClerc's Sentiments de Quelques Theologiens de Hollande, passim; also his\nwork on Inspiration, English translation, Boston, 1820, pp. 47-50,\nalso 57-67. For Witsius and Carpzov, see Curtiss, as above. For some\nsubordinate points in the earlier growth of the opinion at present\ndominant, see Briggs, The Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch, New York,\n1893, chap. iv.\n\n\nDuring the eighteenth century constant additions were made to the\nenormous structure of orthodox scriptural interpretation, some of them\ngaining the applause of the Christian world then, though nearly all\nare utterly discredited now. But in 1753 appeared two contributions\nof permanent influence, though differing vastly in value. In the\ncomparative estimate of these two works the world has seen a remarkable\nreversal of public opinion.\n\nThe first of these was Bishop Lowth's Prelections upon the Sacred Poetry\nof the Hebrews. In this was well brought out that characteristic of\nHebrew poetry to which it owes so much of its peculiar charm--its\nparallelism.\n\nThe second of these books was Astruc's Conjectures on the Original\nMemoirs which Moses used in composing the Book of Genesis. In this\nwas for the first time clearly revealed the fact that, amid various\nfragments of old writings, at least two main narratives enter into the\ncomposition of Genesis; that in the first of these is generally used as\nan appellation of the Almighty the word \"Elohim,\" and in the second the\nword \"Yahveh\" (Jehovah); that each narrative has characteristics of its\nown, in thought and expression, which distinguish it from the other;\nthat, by separating these, two clear and distinct narratives may be\nobtained, each consistent with itself, and that thus, and thus alone,\ncan be explained the repetitions, discrepancies, and contradictions in\nGenesis which so long baffled the ingenuity of commentators, especially\nthe two accounts of the creation, so utterly inconsistent with each\nother.\n\nInteresting as was Lowth's book, this work by Astruc was, as the\nthinking world now acknowledges, infinitely more important; it was,\nindeed, the most valuable single contribution ever made to biblical\nstudy. But such was not the judgment of the world THEN. While Lowth's\nbook was covered with honour and its author promoted from the bishopric\nof St. David's to that of London, and even offered the primacy,\nAstruc and his book were covered with reproach. Though, as an orthodox\nCatholic, he had mainly desired to reassert the authorship of Moses\nagainst the argument of Spinoza, he received no thanks on that account.\nTheologians of all creeds sneered at him as a doctor of medicine who had\nblundered beyond his province; his fellow-Catholics in France bitterly\ndenounced him as a heretic; and in Germany the great Protestant\ntheologian, Michaelis, who had edited and exalted Lowth's work, poured\ncontempt over Astruc as an ignoramus.\n\nThe case of Astruc is one of the many which show the wonderful power of\nthe older theological reasoning to close the strongest minds against\nthe clearest truths. The fact which he discovered is now as definitely\nestablished as any in the whole range of literature or science. It has\nbecome as clear as the day, and yet for two thousand years the minds of\nprofessional theologians, Jewish and Christian, were unable to detect\nit. Not until this eminent physician applied to the subject a mind\ntrained in making scientific distinctions was it given to the world.\n\nIt was, of course, not possible even for so eminent a scholar as\nMichaelis to pooh-pooh down a discovery so pregnant; and, curiously\nenough, it was one of Michaelis's own scholars, Eichhorn, who did the\nmain work in bringing the new truth to bear upon the world. He, with\nothers, developed out of it the theory that Genesis, and indeed the\nPentateuch, is made up entirely of fragments of old writings, mainly\ndisjointed. But they did far more than this: they impressed upon the\nthinking part of Christendom the fact that the Bible is not a BOOK, but\na LITERATURE; that the style is not supernatural and unique, but simply\nthe Oriental style of the lands and times in which its various parts\nwere written; and that these must be studied in the light of the modes\nof thought and statement and the literary habits generally of Oriental\npeoples. From Eichhorn's time the process which, by historical,\nphilological, and textual research, brings out the truth regarding this\nliterature has been known as \"the higher criticism.\"\n\nHe was a deeply religious man, and the mainspring of his efforts was the\ndesire to bring back to the Church the educated classes, who had been\nrepelled by the stiff Lutheran orthodoxy; but this only increased\nhostility to him. Opposition met him in Germany at every turn; and in\nEngland, Lloyd, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, who sought\npatronage for a translation of Eichhorn's work, was met generally with\ncontempt and frequently with insult.\n\nThroughout Catholic Germany it was even worse. In 1774 Isenbiehl, a\npriest at Mayence who had distinguished himself as a Greek and Hebrew\nscholar, happened to question the usual interpretation of the passage in\nIsaiah which refers to the virgin-born Immanuel, and showed then--what\nevery competent critic knows now--that it had reference to events looked\nfor in older Jewish history. The censorship and faculty of theology\nattacked him at once and brought him before the elector. Luckily, this\npotentate was one of the old easy-going prince-bishops, and contented\nhimself with telling the priest that, though his contention was perhaps\ntrue, he \"must remain in the old paths, and avoid everything likely to\nmake trouble.\"\n\nBut at the elector's death, soon afterward, the theologians renewed the\nattack, threw Isenbiehl out of his professorship and degraded him. One\ninsult deserves mention for its ingenuity. It was declared that\nhe--the successful and brilliant professor--showed by the obnoxious\ninterpretation that he had not yet rightly learned the Scriptures; he\nwas therefore sent back to the benches of the theological school, and\nmade to take his seat among the ingenuous youth who were conning the\nrudiments of theology. At this he made a new statement, so carefully\nguarded that it disarmed many of his enemies, and his high scholarship\nsoon won for him a new professorship of Greek--the condition being that\nhe should cease writing upon Scripture. But a crafty bookseller having\nrepublished his former book, and having protected himself by keeping the\nplace and date of publication secret, a new storm fell upon the author;\nhe was again removed from his professorship and thrown into prison; his\nbook was forbidden, and all copies of it in that part of Germany were\nconfiscated. In 1778, having escaped from prison, he sought refuge with\nanother of the minor rulers who in blissful unconsciousness were doing\ntheir worst while awaiting the French Revolution, but was at once\ndelivered up to the Mayence authorities and again thrown into prison.\n\nThe Pope, Pius VI, now intervened with a brief on Isenbiehl's book,\ndeclaring it \"horrible, false, perverse, destructive, tainted with\nheresy,\" and excommunicating all who should read it. At this, Isenbiehl,\ndeclaring that he had written it in the hope of doing a service to the\nChurch, recanted, and vegetated in obscurity until his death in 1818.\n\nBut, despite theological faculties, prince-bishops, and even popes, the\nnew current of thought increased in strength and volume, and into it at\nthe end of the eighteenth century came important contributions from two\nsources widely separated and most dissimilar.\n\nThe first of these, which gave a stimulus not yet exhausted, was the\nwork of Herder. By a remarkable intuition he had anticipated some of\nthose ideas of an evolutionary process in nature and in literature which\nfirst gained full recognition nearly three quarters of a century after\nhim; but his greatest service in the field of biblical study was his\nwork, at once profound and brilliant, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry. In\nthis field he eclipsed Bishop Lowth. Among other things of importance,\nhe showed that the Psalms were by different authors and of different\nperiods--the bloom of a great poetic literature.\n\nUntil his time no one had so clearly done justice to their sublimity and\nbeauty; but most striking of all was his discussion of Solomon's Song.\nFor over twenty centuries it had been customary to attribute to it\nmystical meanings. If here and there some man saw the truth, he was\ncareful, like Aben Ezra, to speak with bated breath.\n\nThe penalty for any more honest interpretation was seen, among\nProtestants, when Calvin and Beza persecuted Castellio, covered him with\nobloquy, and finally drove him to starvation and death, for throwing\nlight upon the real character of the Song of Songs; and among Catholics\nit was seen when Philip II allowed the pious and gifted Luis de Leon,\nfor a similar offence, to be thrown into a dungeon of the Inquisition\nand kept there for five years, until his health was utterly shattered\nand his spirit so broken that he consented to publish a new commentary\non the song, \"as theological and obscure as the most orthodox could\ndesire.\"\n\nHere, too, we have an example of the efficiency of the older biblical\ntheology in fettering the stronger minds and in stupefying the weaker.\nJust as the book of Genesis had to wait over two thousand years for a\nphysician to reveal the simplest fact regarding its structure, so the\nSong of Songs had to wait even longer for a poet to reveal not only its\nbeauty but its character. Commentators innumerable had interpreted it;\nSt. Bernard had preached over eighty sermons on its first two chapters;\nPalestrina had set its most erotic parts to sacred music; Jews and\nGentiles, Catholics and Protestants, from Origen to Aben Ezra and from\nLuther to Bossuet, had uncovered its deep meanings and had demonstrated\nit to be anything and everything save that which it really is. Among\nscores of these strange imaginations it was declared to represent the\nlove of Jehovah for Israel; the love of Christ for the Church; the\npraises of the Blessed Virgin; the union of the soul with the body;\nsacred history from the Exodus to the Messiah; Church history from the\nCrucifixion to the Reformation; and some of the more acute Protestant\ndivines found in it references even to the religious wars in Germany\nand to the Peace of Passau. In these days it seems hard to imagine how\nreally competent reasoners could thus argue without laughing in each\nother's faces, after the manner of Cicero's augurs. Herder showed\nSolomon's Song to be what the whole thinking world now knows it to\nbe--simply an Oriental love-poem.\n\nBut his frankness brought him into trouble: he was bitterly assailed.\nNeither his noble character nor his genius availed him. Obliged to flee\nfrom one pastorate to another, he at last found a happy refuge at\nWeimar in the society of Goethe, Wieland, and Jean Paul, and thence he\nexercised a powerful influence in removing noxious and parasitic growths\nfrom religious thought.\n\nIt would hardly be possible to imagine a man more different from\nHerder than was the other of the two who most influenced biblical\ninterpretation at the end of the eighteenth century. This was Alexander\nGeddes--a Roman Catholic priest and a Scotchman. Having at an early\nperiod attracted much attention by his scholarship, and having received\nthe very rare distinction, for a Catholic, of a doctorate from the\nUniversity of Aberdeen, he began publishing in 1792 a new translation of\nthe Old Testament, and followed this in 1800 with a volume of critical\nremarks. In these he supported mainly three views: first, that the\nPentateuch in its present form could not have been written by Moses;\nsecondly, that it was the work of various hands; and, thirdly, that it\ncould not have been written before the time of David. Although there\nwas a fringe of doubtful theories about them, these main conclusions,\nsupported as they were by deep research and cogent reasoning, are now\nrecognised as of great value. But such was not the orthodox opinion\nthen. Though a man of sincere piety, who throughout his entire life\nremained firm in the faith of his fathers, he and his work were at\nonce condemned: he was suspended by the Catholic authorities as a\nmisbeliever, denounced by Protestants as an infidel, and taunted by both\nas \"a would-be corrector of the Holy Ghost.\" Of course, by this\ntaunt was meant nothing more than that he dissented from sundry ideas\ninherited from less enlightened times by the men who just then happened\nto wield ecclesiastical power.\n\nBut not all the opposition to him could check the evolution of his\nthought. A line of great men followed in these paths opened by Astruc\nand Eichhorn, and broadened by Herder and Geddes. Of these was De Wette,\nwhose various works, especially his Introduction to the Old Testament,\ngave a new impulse early in the nineteenth century to fruitful thought\nthroughout Christendom. In these writings, while showing how largely\nmyths and legends had entered into the Hebrew sacred books, he threw\nespecial light into the books Deuteronomy and Chronicles. The former\nhe showed to be, in the main, a late priestly summary of law, and the\nlatter a very late priestly recast of early history. He had, indeed, to\npay a penalty for thus aiding the world in its march toward more truth,\nfor he was driven out of Germany, and obliged to take refuge in a\nSwiss professorship; while Theodore Parker, who published an English\ntranslation of his work, was, for this and similar sins, virtually\nrejected by what claimed to be the most liberal of all Christian bodies\nin the United States.\n\nBut contributions to the new thought continued from quarters whence\nleast was expected. Gesenius, by his Hebrew Grammar, and Ewald, by his\nhistorical studies, greatly advanced it.\n\nTo them and to all like them during the middle years of the nineteenth\ncentury was sturdily opposed the colossus of orthodoxy--Hengstenberg. In\nhim was combined the haughtiness of a Prussian drill-sergeant, the zeal\nof a Spanish inquisitor, and the flippant brutality of a French orthodox\njournalist. Behind him stood the gifted but erratic Frederick William\nIV--a man admirably fitted for a professorship of aesthetics, but whom\nan inscrutable fate had made King of Prussia. Both these rulers in the\nGerman Israel arrayed all possible opposition against the great scholars\nlabouring in the new paths; but this opposition was vain: the succession\nof acute and honest scholars continued: Vatke, Bleek, Reuss, Graf,\nKayser, Hupfeld, Delitzsch, Kuenen, and others wrought on in Germany and\nHolland, steadily developing the new truth.\n\nEspecially to be mentioned among these is Hupfeld, who published in 1853\nhis treatise on The Sources of Genesis. Accepting the Conjectures which\nAstruc had published just a hundred years before, he established what\nhas ever since been recognised by the leading biblical commentators as\nthe true basis of work upon the Pentateuch--the fact that THREE true\ndocuments are combined in Genesis, each with its own characteristics.\nHe, too, had to pay a price for letting more light upon the world. A\ndetermined attempt was made to punish him. Though deeply religious in\nhis nature and aspirations, he was denounced in 1865 to the Prussian\nGovernment as guilty of irreverence; but, to the credit of his noble and\ntrue colleagues who trod in the more orthodox paths--men like Tholuck\nand Julius Muller--the theological faculty of the University of Halle\nprotested against this persecuting effort, and it was brought to naught.\n\nThe demonstrations of Hupfeld gave new life to biblical scholarship in\nall lands. More and more clear became the evidence that throughout the\nPentateuch, and indeed in other parts of our sacred books, there had\nbeen a fusion of various ideas, a confounding of various epochs, and a\ncompilation of various documents. Thus was opened a new field of thought\nand work: in sifting out this literature; in rearranging it; and in\nbringing it into proper connection with the history of the Jewish race\nand of humanity.\n\nAstruc and Hupfeld having thus found a key to the true character of the\n\"Mosaic\" Scriptures, a second key was found which opened the way to the\nsecret of order in all this chaos. For many generations one thing had\nespecially puzzled commentators and given rise to masses of futile\n\"reconciliation\": this was the patent fact that such men as Samuel,\nDavid, Elijah, Isaiah, and indeed the whole Jewish people down to the\nExile, showed in all their utterances and actions that they were utterly\nignorant of that vast system of ceremonial law which, according to the\naccounts attributed to Moses and other parts of our sacred books, was in\nfull force during their time and during nearly a thousand years before\nthe Exile. It was held \"always, everywhere, and by all,\" that in the\nOld Testament the chronological order of revelation was: first, the\nlaw; secondly, the Psalms; thirdly, the prophets. This belief continued\nunchallenged during more than two thousand years, and until after the\nmiddle of the nineteenth century.\n\nYet, as far back as 1835, Vatke at Berlin had, in his Religion of the\nOld Testament, expressed his conviction that this belief was unfounded.\nReasoning that Jewish thought must have been subject to the laws of\ndevelopment which govern other systems, he arrived at the conclusion\nthat the legislation ascribed to Moses, and especially the elaborate\nparaphernalia and composite ceremonies of the ritual, could not have\ncome into being at a period so rude as that depicted in the \"Mosaic\"\naccounts.\n\nAlthough Vatke wrapped this statement in a mist of Hegelian metaphysics,\na sufficient number of watchmen on the walls of the Prussian Zion saw\nits meaning, and an alarm was given. The chroniclers tell us that \"fear\nof failing in the examinations, through knowing too much, kept students\naway from Vatke's lectures.\" Naturally, while Hengstenberg and Frederick\nWilliam IV were commanding the forces of orthodoxy, Vatke thought it\nwise to be silent.\n\nStill, the new idea was in the air; indeed, it had been divined about a\nyear earlier, on the other side of the Rhine, by a scholar well known\nas acute and thoughtful--Reuss, of Strasburg. Unfortunately, he too was\noverawed, and he refrained from publishing his thought during more\nthan forty years. But his ideas were caught by some of his most gifted\nscholars; and, of these, Graf and Kayser developed them and had the\ncourage to publish them.\n\nAt the same period this new master key was found and applied by a\ngreater man than any of these--by Kuenen, of Holland; and thus it was\nthat three eminent scholars, working in different parts of Europe and on\ndifferent lines, in spite of all obstacles, joined in enforcing upon the\nthinking world the conviction that the complete Levitical law had\nbeen established not at the beginning, but at the end, of the Jewish\nnation--mainly, indeed, after the Jewish nation as an independent\npolitical body had ceased to exist; that this code had not been revealed\nin the childhood of Israel, but that it had come into being in a\nperfectly natural way during Israel's final decay--during the period\nwhen heroes and prophets had been succeeded by priests. Thus was the\nhistorical and psychological evolution of Jewish institutions brought\ninto harmony with the natural development of human thought; elaborate\nceremonial institutions being shown to have come after the ruder\nbeginnings of religious development instead of before them. Thus came\na new impulse to research, and the fruitage was abundant; the older\ntheological interpretation, with its insoluble puzzles, yielded on all\nsides.\n\nThe lead in the new epoch thus opened was taken by Kuenen. Starting\nwith strong prepossessions in favour of the older thought, and even with\nviolent utterances against some of the supporters of the new view, he\nwas borne on by his love of truth, until his great work, The Religion of\nIsrael, published in 1869, attracted the attention of thinking scholars\nthroughout the world by its arguments in favour of the upward movement.\nFrom him now came a third master key to the mystery; for he showed that\nthe true opening point for research into the history and literature of\nIsrael is to be found in the utterances of the great prophets of the\neighth century before our era. Starting from these, he opened new paths\ninto the periods preceding and following them. Recognising the fact\nthat the religion of Israel was, like other great world religions, a\ndevelopment of higher ideas out of lower, he led men to bring deeper\nthinking and wider research into the great problem. With ample learning\nand irresistible logic he proved that Old Testament history is largely\nmingled with myth and legend; that not only were the laws attributed\nto Moses in the main a far later development, but that much of their\nhistorical setting was an afterthought; also that Old Testament prophecy\nwas never supernaturally predictive, and least of all predictive of\nevents recorded in the New Testament. Thus it was that his genius gave\nto the thinking world a new point of view, and a masterly exhibition of\nthe true method of study. Justly has one of the most eminent divines\nof the contemporary Anglican Church indorsed the statement of another\neminent scholar, that \"Kuenen stood upon his watch-tower, as it were\nthe conscience of Old Testament science\"; that his work is characterized\n\"not merely by fine scholarship, critical insight, historical sense, and\na religious nature, but also by an incorruptible conscientiousness, and\na majestic devotion to the quest of truth.\"\n\nThus was established the science of biblical criticism. And now the\nquestion was, whether the Church of northern Germany would accept\nthis great gift--the fruit of centuries of devoted toil and\nself-sacrifice--and take the lead of Christendom in and by it.\n\nThe great curse of Theology and Ecclesiasticism has always been their\ntendency to sacrifice large interests to small--Charity to Creed, Unity\nto Uniformity, Fact to Tradition, Ethics to Dogma. And now there were\nsymptoms throughout the governing bodies of the Reformed churches\nindicating a determination to sacrifice leadership in this new thought\nto ease in orthodoxy. Every revelation of new knowledge encountered\noutcry, opposition, and repression; and, what was worse, the ill-judged\ndeclarations of some unwise workers in the critical field were seized\nupon and used to discredit all fruitful research. Fortunately, a man now\nappeared who both met all this opposition successfully, and put aside\nall the half truths or specious untruths urged by minor critics whose\nzeal outran their discretion. This was a great constructive scholar--not\na destroyer, but a builder--Wellhausen. Reverently, but honestly and\ncourageously, with clearness, fulness, and convicting force, he summed\nup the conquests of scientific criticism as bearing on Hebrew history\nand literature. These conquests had reduced the vast structures which\ntheologians had during ages been erecting over the sacred text to\nshapeless ruin and rubbish: this rubbish he removed, and brought out\nfrom beneath it the reality. He showed Jewish history as an evolution\nobedient to laws at work in all ages, and Jewish literature as a growth\nout of individual, tribal, and national life. Thus was our sacred\nhistory and literature given a beauty and high use which had long been\nforeign to them. Thereby was a vast service rendered immediately to\nGermany, and eventually to all mankind; and this service was greatest of\nall in the domain of religion.(476)\n\n\n     (476) For Lowth, see the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D. D., Professor of the\nInterpretation of the Holy Scripture in the University of Oxford,\nFounders of the Old Testament Criticism, London, 1893, pp. 3, 4.\nFor Astruc's very high character as a medical authority, see the\nDictionnaire des Sciences Medicales, Paris, 1820; it is significant that\nat first he concealed his authorship of the Conjectures. For a brief\nstatement, see Cheyne; also Moore's introduction to Bacon's Genesis of\nGenesis; but for a statement remarkably full and interesting, and based\non knowledge at first hand of Astruc's very rare book, see Curtiss, as\nabove. For Michaelis and Eichorn, see Meyer, Geschichte der Exegese;\nalso Cheyne and Moore. For Isenbiehl, see Reusch, in Allg. deutsche\nBiographie. The texts cited against him were Isaiah vii, 14, and Matt.\ni, 22, 23. For Herder, see various historians of literature and writers\nin exegesis, and especially Pfleiderer, Development of Theology in\nGermany, chap. ii. For his influence, as well as that of Lessing, see\nBeard's Hibbert Lectures, chap. x. For a brief comparison of Lowth's\nwork with that of Herder, see Farrar, History of Interpretation, p. 377.\nFor examples of interpretations of the Song of Songs, see Farrar, as\nabove, p. 33. For Castellio (Chatillon), his anticipation of Herder's\nview of Solomon's Song, and his persecution by Calvin and Beza, which\ndrove him to starvation and death, see Lecky, Rationalism, etc.,\nvol. ii, pp. 46-48; also Bayle's Dictionary, article Castalio; also\nMontaigne's Essais, liv,. i, chap. xxxiv; and especially the new life\nof him by Buisson. For the persecution of Luis de Leon for a similar\noffence, see Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature, vol. ii, pp. 41,\n42, and note. For a remarkably frank acceptance of the consequences\nflowing from Herder's view of it, see Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 211, 405.\nFor Geddes, see Cheyne, as above. For Theodore Parker, see his various\nbiographies, passim. For Reuss, Graf, and Kuenen, see Cheyne, as above;\nand for the citations referred to, see the Rev. Dr. Driver, Regius\nProfessor of Hebrew at Oxford, in The Academy, October 27, 1894; also a\nnote to Wellhausen's article Pentateuch in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.\nFor a generous yet weighty tribute to Kuenen's method, see Pfleiderer,\nas above, book iii, chap. ii. For the view of leading Christian critics\non the book of Chronicles, see especially Driver, Introduction to the\nLiterature of the Old Testament, pp. 495 et seq.; also Wellhausen, as\nabove; also Hooykaas, Oort, and Kuenen, Bible for Learners. For many of\nthe foregoing, see also the writings of Prof. W. Robertson Smith; also\nBeard's Hibbert Lectures, chap. x. For Hupfield and his discovery, see\nCheyne, Founders, etc., as above, chap. vii; also Moore's Introduction.\nFor a justly indignant judgment of Hengstenberg and his school, see\nCanon Farrar, as above, p. 417, note; and for a few words throwing a\nbright light into his character and career, see C. A. Briggs, D. D.,\nAuthority of Holy Scripture, p. 93. For Wellhausen, see Pfleiderer, as\nabove, book iii, chap. ii. For an excellent popular statement of the\ngeneral results of German criticism, see J. T. Sunderland, The Bible,\nIts Origin, Growth, and Character, New York and London, 1893.\n\n\n\n\nIII. THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF SCIENTIFIC INTERPRETATION.\n\n\nThe science of biblical criticism was, as we have seen, first developed\nmainly in Germany and Holland. Many considerations there, as elsewhere,\ncombined to deter men from opening new paths to truth: not even in those\ncountries were these the paths to preferment; but there, at least, the\nsturdy Teutonic love of truth for truth's sake, strengthened by the\nKantian ethics, found no such obstacles as in other parts of Europe.\nFair investigation of biblical subjects had not there been extirpated,\nas in Italy and Spain; nor had it been forced into channels which led\nnowhither, as in France and southern Germany; nor were men who might\notherwise have pursued it dazzled and drawn away from it by the\nmultitude of splendid prizes for plausibility, for sophistry, or for\nsilence displayed before the ecclesiastical vision in England. In the\nfrugal homes of North German and Dutch professors and pastors high\nthinking on these great subjects went steadily on, and the \"liberty of\nteaching,\" which is the glory of the northern Continental universities,\nwhile it did not secure honest thinkers against vexations, did at least\nprotect them against the persecutions which in other countries would\nhave thwarted their studies and starved their families.(477)\n\n\n     (477) As to the influence of Kant on honest thought in Germany, see\nPfleiderer, as above, chap. i.\n\n\nIn England the admission of the new current of thought was apparently\nimpossible. The traditional system of biblical interpretation seemed\nestablished on British soil forever. It was knit into the whole fabric\nof thought and observance; it was protected by the most justly esteemed\nhierarchy the world has ever seen; it was intrenched behind the bishops'\npalaces, the cathedral stalls, the professors' chairs, the country\nparsonages--all these, as a rule, the seats of high endeavour and\nbeautiful culture. The older thought held a controlling voice in the\nsenate of the nation; it was dear to the hearts of all classes; it was\nsuperbly endowed; every strong thinker seemed to hold a brief, or to be\nin receipt of a retaining fee for it. As to preferment in the Church,\nthere was a cynical aphorism current, \"He may hold anything who will\nhold his tongue.\"(478)\n\n\n     (478) For an eloquent and at the same time profound statement of the\nevils flowing from the \"moral terrorism\" and \"intellectual tyrrany\"\nat Oxford at the period referred to, see quotation in Pfleiderer,\nDevelopment of Theology, p. 371.\n\nFor the alloy of interested motives among English Church dignitiaries,\nsee the pungent criticism of Bishop Hampden by Canon Liddon, in his Life\nof Pusey, vol. i, p. 363.\n\n\nYet, while there was inevitably much alloy of worldly wisdom in the\nopposition to the new thought, no just thinker can deny far higher\nmotives to many, perhaps to most, of the ecclesiastics who were resolute\nagainst it. The evangelical movement incarnate in the Wesleys had not\nspent its strength; the movement begun by Pusey, Newman, Keble, and\ntheir compeers was in full force. The aesthetic reaction, represented on\nthe Continent by Chateaubriand, Manzoni, and Victor Hugo, and in England\nby Walter Scott, Pugin, Ruskin, and above all by Wordsworth, came in\nto give strength to this barrier. Under the magic of the men who led in\nthis reaction, cathedrals and churches, which in the previous century\nhad been regarded by men of culture as mere barbaric masses of stone and\nmortar, to be masked without by classic colonnades and within by rococo\nwork in stucco and papier mache, became even more beloved than in\nthe thirteenth century. Even men who were repelled by theological\ndisputations were fascinated and made devoted reactionists by the newly\nrevealed beauties of medieval architecture and ritual.(479)\n\n\n     (479) A very curious example of this insensibility among persons of\nreally high culture is to be found in American literature toward the\nend of the eighteenth century. Mrs. Adams, wife of John Adams, afterward\nPresident of the United States, but at that time minister to England,\none of the most gifted women of her time, speaking, in her very\ninteresting letters from England, of her journey to the seashore, refers\nto Canterbury Cathedral, seen from her carriage windows, and which she\nevidently did not take the trouble to enter, as \"looking like a vast\nprison.\" So, too, about the same time, Thomas Jefferson, the American\nplenipotentiary in France, a devoted lover of classical and Renaissance\narchitecture, giving an account of his journey to Paris, never refers to\nany of the beautiful cathedrals or churches upon his route.\n\n\nThe centre and fortress of this vast system, and of the reaction against\nthe philosophy of the eighteenth century, was the University of Oxford.\nOrthodoxy was its vaunt, and a special exponent of its spirit and\nobject of its admiration was its member of Parliament, Mr. William Ewart\nGladstone, who, having begun his political career by a laboured plea\nfor the union of church and state, ended it by giving that union what\nis likely to be a death-blow. The mob at the circus of Constantinople in\nthe days of the Byzantine emperors was hardly more wildly orthodox than\nthe mob of students at this foremost seat of learning of the Anglo-Saxon\nrace during the middle decades of the nineteenth century. The Moslem\nstudents of El Azhar are hardly more intolerant now than these English\nstudents were then. A curious proof of this had been displayed just\nbefore the end of that period. The minister of the United States at the\ncourt of St. James was then Edward Everett. He was undoubtedly the most\naccomplished scholar and one of the foremost statesmen that America\nhad produced; his eloquence in early life had made him perhaps the most\nadmired of American preachers; his classical learning had at a later\nperiod made him Professor of Greek at Harvard; he had successfully\nedited the leading American review, and had taken a high place in\nAmerican literature; he had been ten years a member of Congress; he had\nbeen again and again elected Governor of Massachusetts; and in all\nthese posts he had shown amply those qualities which afterward made him\nPresident of Harvard, Secretary of State of the United States, and\na United States Senator. His character and attainments were of the\nhighest, and, as he was then occupying the foremost place in the\ndiplomatic service of his country, he was invited to receive an\nappropriate honorary degree at Oxford. But, on his presentation for\nit in the Sheldonian Theatre, there came a revelation to the people he\nrepresented, and indeed to all Christendom: a riot having been\ncarefully prepared beforehand by sundry zealots, he was most grossly and\ningeniously insulted by the mob of undergraduates and bachelors of art\nin the galleries and masters of arts on the floor; and the reason for\nthis was that, though by no means radical in his religious opinions, he\nwas thought to have been in his early life, and to be possibly at\nthat time, below what was then the Oxford fashion in belief, or rather\nfeeling, regarding the mystery of the Trinity.\n\nAt the centre of biblical teaching at Oxford sat Pusey, Regius Professor\nof Hebrew, a scholar who had himself remained for a time at a German\nuniversity, and who early in life had imbibed just enough of the German\nspirit to expose him to suspicion and even to attack. One charge\nagainst him at that time shows curiously what was then expected of a\nman perfectly sound in the older Anglican theology. He had ventured\nto defend holy writ with the argument that there were fishes actually\nexisting which could have swallowed the prophet Jonah. The argument\nproved unfortunate. He was attacked on the scriptural ground that the\nfish which swallowed Jonah was created for that express purpose. He,\nlike others, fell back under the charm of the old system: his ideas\ngave force to the reaction: in the quiet of his study, which, especially\nafter the death of his son, became a hermitage, he relapsed into\npatristic and medieval conceptions of Christianity, enforcing them from\nthe pulpit and in his published works. He now virtually accepted the\nfamous dictum of Hugo of St. Victor--that one is first to find what is\nto be believed, and then to search the Scriptures for proofs of it. His\ndevotion to the main features of the older interpretation was seen at\nits strongest in his utterances regarding the book of Daniel. Just as\nCardinal Bellarmine had insisted that the doctrine of the incarnation\ndepends upon the retention of the Ptolemaic astronomy; just as Danzius\nhad insisted that the very continuance of religion depends on the\ndivine origin of the Hebrew punctuation; just as Peter Martyr had made\neverything sacred depend on the literal acceptance of Genesis; just as\nBishop Warburton had insisted that Christianity absolutely depends upon\na right interpretation of the prophecies regarding Antichrist; just\nas John Wesley had insisted that the truth of the Bible depends on the\nreality of witchcraft; just as, at a later period, Bishop Wilberforce\ninsisted that the doctrine of the Incarnation depends on the \"Mosaic\"\nstatements regarding the origin of man; and just as Canon Liddon\ninsisted that Christianity itself depends on a literal belief in Noah's\nflood, in the transformation of Lot's wife, and in the sojourn of Jonah\nin the whale: so did Pusey then virtually insist that Christianity must\nstand or fall with the early date of the book of Daniel. Happily, though\nthe Ptolemaic astronomy, and witchcraft, and the Genesis creation myths,\nand the Adam, Noah, Lot, and Jonah legends, and the divine origin of\nthe Hebrew punctuation, and the prophecies regarding Antichrist, and the\nearly date of the book of Daniel have now been relegated to the limbo of\nontworn beliefs, Christianity has but come forth the stronger.\n\nNothing seemed less likely than that such a vast intrenched camp as that\nof which Oxford was the centre could be carried by an effort proceeding\nfrom a few isolated German and Dutch scholars. Yet it was the unexpected\nwhich occurred; and it is instructive to note that, even at the\nperiod when the champions of the older thought were to all appearance\nimpregnably intrenched in England, a way had been opened into their\ncitadel, and that the most effective agents in preparing it were really\nthe very men in the universities and cathedral chapters who had most\ndistinguished themselves by uncompromising and intolerant orthodoxy.\n\nA rapid survey of the history of general literary criticism at that\nepoch will reveal this fact fully. During the last decade of the\nseventeenth century there had taken place the famous controversy\nover the Letters of Phalaris, in which, against Charles Boyle and his\nsupporters at Oxford, was pitted Richard Bentley at Cambridge, who\ninsisted that the letters were spurious. In the series of battles royal\nwhich followed, although Boyle, aided by Atterbury, afterward so noted\nfor his mingled ecclesiastical and political intrigues, had gained a\ntemporary triumph by wit and humour, Bentley's final attack had proved\nirresistible. Drawing from the stores of his wonderfully wide and minute\nknowledge, he showed that the letters could not have been written in the\ntime of Phalaris--proving this by an exhibition of their style, which\ncould not then have been in use, of their reference to events which had\nnot then taken place, and of a mass of considerations which no one but\na scholar almost miraculously gifted could have marshalled so fully. The\ncontroversy had attracted attention not only in England but throughout\nEurope. With Bentley's reply it had ended. In spite of public applause\nat Atterbury's wit, scholars throughout the world acknowledged Bentley's\nvictory: he was recognised as the foremost classical scholar of his\ntime; the mastership of Trinity, which he accepted, and the Bristol\nbishopric, which he rejected, were his formal reward.\n\nAlthough, in his new position as head of the greatest college in\nEngland, he went to extreme lengths on the orthodox side in biblical\ntheology, consenting even to support the doctrine that the Hebrew\npunctuation was divinely inspired, this was as nothing compared with the\ninfluence of the system of criticism which he introduced into English\nstudies of classical literature in preparing the way for the application\nof a similar system to ALL literature, whether called sacred or profane.\n\nUp to that period there had really been no adequate criticism of ancient\nliterature. Whatever name had been attached to any ancient writing was\nusually accepted as the name of the author: what texts should be imputed\nto an author was settled generally on authority. But with Bentley began\na new epoch. His acute intellect and exquisite touch revealed clearly\nto English scholars the new science of criticism, and familiarized the\nminds of thinking men with the idea that the texts of ancient literature\nmust be submitted to this science. Henceforward a new spirit reigned\namong the best classical scholars, prophetic of more and more light in\nthe greater field of sacred literature. Scholars, of whom Porson was\nchief, followed out this method, and though at times, as in Porson's\nown case, they were warned off, with much loss and damage, from the\napplication of it to the sacred text, they kept alive the better\ntradition.\n\nA hundred years after Bentley's main efforts appeared in Germany another\nepoch-making book--Wolf's Introduction to Homer. In this was broached\nthe theory that the Iliad and Odyssey are not the works of a single\ngreat poet, but are made up of ballad literature wrought into unity by\nmore or less skilful editing. In spite of various changes and phases of\nopinion on this subject since Wolf's day, he dealt a killing blow at\nthe idea that classical works are necessarily to be taken at what may be\ntermed their face value.\n\nMore and more clearly it was seen that the ideas of early copyists, and\neven of early possessors of masterpieces in ancient literature, were\nentirely different from those to which the modern world is accustomed.\nIt was seen that manipulations and interpolations in the text by\ncopyists and possessors had long been considered not merely venial sins,\nbut matters of right, and that even the issuing of whole books under\nassumed names had been practised freely.\n\nIn 1811 a light akin to that thrown by Bentley and Wolf upon ancient\nliterature was thrown by Niebuhr upon ancient history. In his History\nof Rome the application of scientific principles to the examination\nof historical sources was for the first time exhibited largely and\nbrilliantly. Up to that period the time-honoured utterances of ancient\nauthorities had been, as a rule, accepted as final: no breaking away,\neven from the most absurd of them, was looked upon with favour, and any\none presuming to go behind them was regarded as troublesome and even as\ndangerous.\n\nThrough this sacred conventionalism Niebuhr broke fearlessly, and,\nthough at times overcritical, he struck from the early history of Rome a\nvast mass of accretions, and gave to the world a residue infinitely more\nvaluable than the original amalgam of myth, legend, and chronicle.\n\nHis methods were especially brought to bear on students' history by\none of the truest men and noblest scholars that the English race\nhas produced--Arnold of Rugby--and, in spite of the inevitable heavy\nconservatism, were allowed to do their work in the field of ancient\nhistory as well as in that of ancient classical literature.\n\nThe place of myth in history thus became more and more understood,\nand historical foundations, at least so far as SECULAR history was\nconcerned, were henceforth dealt with in a scientific spirit. The\nextension of this new treatment to ALL ancient literature and history\nwas now simply a matter of time.\n\nSuch an extension had already begun; for in 1829 had appeared Milman's\nHistory of the Jews. In this work came a further evolution of the\ntruths and methods suggested by Bentley, Wolf, and Niebuhr, and their\napplication to sacred history was made strikingly evident. Milman,\nthough a clergyman, treated the history of the chosen people in the\nlight of modern knowledge of Oriental and especially of Semitic peoples.\nHe exhibited sundry great biblical personages of the wandering days\nof Israel as sheiks or emirs or Bedouin chieftains; and the tribes of\nIsrael as obedient then to the same general laws, customs, and ideas\ngoverning wandering tribes in the same region now. He dealt with\nconflicting sources somewhat in the spirit of Bentley, and with the\nmythical, legendary, and miraculous somewhat in the spirit of Niebuhr.\nThis treatment of the history of the Jews, simply as the development of\nan Oriental tribe, raised great opposition. Such champions of orthodoxy\nas Bishop Mant and Dr. Faussett straightway took the field, and with\nsuch effect that the Family Library, a very valuable series in which\nMilman's history appeared, was put under the ban, and its further\npublication stopped. For years Milman, though a man of exquisite\nliterary and lofty historical gifts, as well as of most honourable\ncharacter, was debarred from preferment and outstripped by ecclesiastics\nvastly inferior to him in everything save worldly wisdom; for years he\nwas passed in the race for honours by divines who were content either\nto hold briefs for all the contemporary unreason which happened to be\npopular, or to keep their mouths shut altogether. This opposition to him\nextended to his works. For many years they were sneered at, decried, and\nkept from the public as far as possible.\n\nFortunately, the progress of events lifted him, before the closing years\nof his life, above all this opposition. As Dean of St. Paul's he really\noutranked the contemporary archbishops: he lived to see his main ideas\naccepted, and his History of Latin Christianity received as certainly\none of the most valuable, and no less certainly the most attractive, of\nall Church histories ever written.\n\nThe two great English histories of Greece--that by Thirlwall, which was\nfinished, and that by Grote, which was begun, in the middle years of\nthe nineteenth century--came in to strengthen this new development. By\napplication of the critical method to historical sources, by pointing\nout more and more fully the inevitable part played by myth and legend\nin early chronicles, by displaying more and more clearly the ease\nwith which interpolations of texts, falsifications of statements, and\nattributions to pretended authors were made, they paved the way still\nfurther toward a just and fruitful study of sacred literature.(480)\n\n\n     (480) For Mr. Gladstone's earlier opinion, see his Church and State, and\nMacaulay's review of it. For Pusey, see Mozley, Ward, Newman's\nApologia, Dean Church, etc., and especially his Life, by Liddon. Very\ncharacteristic touches are given in vol. i, showing the origin of many\nof his opinions (see letter on p. 184). For the scandalous treatment of\nMr. Everett by the clerical mob at Oxford, see a rather jaunty account\nof the preparations and of the whole performance in a letter written at\nthe time from Oxford by the late Dean Church, in The Life and Letters of\nDean Church, London, 1894, pp. 40, 41. For a brief but excellent summary\nof the character and services of Everett, see J. F. Rhodes's History of\nthe United States from the Compromise of 1850, New York, 1893, vol.\ni, pp. 291 et seq. For a succinct and brilliant history of the\nBentley-Boyle controversy, see Macauley's article on Bentley in the\nEncyclopaedia Britannica; also Beard's Hibbert Lectures for 1893, pp.\n344, 345; also Dissertation in Bentley's work, edited by Dyce, London,\n1836, vol. i, especially the preface. For Wolf, see his Prolegomena ad\nHomerum, Halle, 1795; for its effects, see the admirable brief statement\nin Beard, as above, p. 345. For Niebuhr, see his Roman History,\ntranslated by Hare and Thirlwall, London, 1828; also Beard, as above.\nFor Milman's view, see, as a specimen, his History of the Jews, last\nedition, especially pp. 15-27. For a noble tribute to his character, see\nthe preface to Lecky's History of European Morals. For Thirlwall, see\nhis History of Greece, passim; also his letters; also his Charge of the\nBishop of St. David's, 1863.\n\n\nDown to the middle of the nineteenth century the traditionally orthodox\nside of English scholarship, while it had not been able to maintain\nany effective quarantine against Continental criticism of classical\nliterature, had been able to keep up barriers fairly strong against\nContinental discussions of sacred literature. But in the second half of\nthe nineteenth century these barriers were broken at many points, and,\nthe stream of German thought being united with the current of devotion\nto truth in England, there appeared early in 1860 a modest volume\nentitled Essays and Reviews. This work discussed sundry of the older\ntheological positions which had been rendered untenable by modern\nresearch, and brought to bear upon them the views of the newer school\nof biblical interpretation. The authors were, as a rule, scholars in\nthe prime of life, holding influential positions in the universities and\npublic schools. They were seven--the first being Dr. Temple, a successor\nof Arnold at Rugby; and the others, the Rev. Dr. Rowland Williams, Prof.\nBaden Powell, the Rev. H. B. Wilson, Mr. C. W. Goodwin, the Rev. Mark\nPattison, and the Rev. Prof. Jowett--the only one of the seven not in\nholy orders being Goodwin. All the articles were important, though\nthe first, by Temple, on The Education of the World, and the last, by\nJowett, on The Interpretation of Scripture, being the most moderate,\nserved most effectually as entering wedges into the old tradition.\n\nAt first no great attention was paid to the book, the only notice being\nthe usual attempts in sundry clerical newspapers to pooh-pooh it. But in\nOctober, 1860, appeared in the Westminster Review an article exulting\nin the work as an evidence that the new critical method had at last\npenetrated the Church of England.\n\nThe opportunity for defending the Church was at once seized by no less a\npersonage than Bishop Wilberforce, of Oxford, the same who a few months\nbefore had secured a fame more lasting than enviable by his attacks on\nDarwin and the evolutionary theory. His first onslaught was made in\na charge to his clergy. This he followed up with an article in the\nQuarterly Review, very explosive in its rhetoric, much like that which\nhe had devoted in the same periodical to Darwin. The bishop declared\nthat the work tended \"toward infidelity, if not to atheism\"; that the\nwriters had been \"guilty of criminal levity\"; that, with the exception\nof the essay by Dr. Temple, their writings were \"full of sophistries and\nscepticisms.\" He was especially bitter against Prof. Jowett's dictum,\n\"Interpret the Scripture like any other book\"; he insisted that Mr.\nGoodwin's treatment of the Mosaic account of the origin of man \"sweeps\naway the whole basis of inspiration and leaves no place for the\nIncarnation\"; and through the article were scattered such rhetorical\nadornments as the words \"infidel,\" \"atheistic,\" \"false,\" and \"wanton.\"\nIt at once attracted wide attention, but its most immediate effect\nwas to make the fortune of Essays and Reviews, which was straightway\ndemanded on every hand, went through edition after edition, and became a\npower in the land. At this a panic began, and with the usual results\nof panic--much folly and some cruelty. Addresses from clergy and laity,\nmany of them frantic with rage and fear, poured in upon the bishops,\nbegging them to save Christianity and the Church: a storm of abuse\narose: the seven essayists were stigmatized as \"the seven extinguishers\nof the seven lamps of the Apocalypse,\" \"the seven champions NOT of\nChristendom.\" As a result of all this pressure, Sumner, Archbishop of\nCanterbury, one of the last of the old, kindly, bewigged pluralists\nof the Georgian period, headed a declaration, which was signed by the\nArchbishop of York and a long list of bishops, expressing pain at\nthe appearance of the book, but doubts as to the possibility of any\neffective dealing with it. This letter only made matters worse.\nThe orthodox decried it as timid, and the liberals denounced it as\nirregular. The same influences were exerted in the sister island, and\nthe Protestant archbishops in Ireland issued a joint letter warning the\nfaithful against the \"disingenuousness\" of the book. Everything seemed\nto increase the ferment. A meeting of clergy and laity having been held\nat Oxford in the matter of electing a Professor of Sanscrit, the older\northodox party, having made every effort to defeat the eminent scholar\nMax Miller, and all in vain, found relief after their defeat in new\ndenunciations of Essays and Reviews.\n\nOf the two prelates who might have been expected to breast the storm,\nTait, Bishop of London, afterward Archbishop of Canterbury, bent to it\nfor a period, though he soon recovered himself and did good service; the\nother, Thirlwall, Bishop of St. David's, bided his time, and, when the\nproper moment came, struck most effective blows for truth and justice.\n\nTait, large-minded and shrewd, one of the most statesmanlike of\nprelates, at first endeavoured to detach Temple and Jowett from their\nassociates; but, though Temple was broken down with a load of care,\nand especially by the fact that he had upon his shoulders the school at\nRugby, whose patrons had become alarmed at his connection with the book,\nhe showed a most refreshing courage and manliness. A passage from his\nletters to the Bishop of London runs as follows: \"With regard to my own\nconduct I can only say that nothing on earth will induce me to do what\nyou propose. I do not judge for others, but in me it would be base and\nuntrue.\" On another occasion Dr. Temple, when pressed in the interest\nof the institution of learning under his care to detach himself from his\nassociates in writing the book, declared to a meeting of the masters\nof the school that, if any statements were made to the effect that he\ndisapproved of the other writers in the volume, he should probably find\nit his duty to contradict them. Another of these letters to the Bishop\nof London contains sundry passages of great force. One is as follows:\n\"Many years ago you urged us from the university pulpit to undertake the\ncritical study of the Bible. You said that it was a dangerous study, but\nindispensable. You described its difficulties, and those who listened\nmust have felt a confidence (as I assuredly did, for I was there) that\nif they took your advice and entered on the task, you, at any rate,\nwould never join in treating them unjustly if their study had brought\nwith it the difficulties you described. Such a study, so full of\ndifficulties, imperatively demands freedom for its condition. To tell a\nman to study, and yet bid him, under heavy penalties, come to the same\nconclusions with those who have not studied, is to mock him. If the\nconclusions are prescribed, the study is precluded.\" And again, what,\nas coming from a man who has since held two of the most important\nbishoprics in the English Church, is of great importance: \"What can be a\ngrosser superstition than the theory of literal inspiration? But because\nthat has a regular footing it is to be treated as a good man's mistake,\nwhile the courage to speak the truth about the first chapter of Genesis\nis a wanton piece of wickedness.\"\n\nThe storm howled on. In the Convocation of Canterbury it was especially\nviolent. In the Lower House Archdeacon Denison insisted on the greatest\nseverity, as he said, \"for the sake of the young who are tainted, and\ncorrupted, and thrust almost to hell by the action of this book.\" At\nanother time the same eminent churchman declared: \"Of all books in any\nlanguage which I ever laid my hands on, this is incomparably the worst;\nit contains all the poison which is to be found in Tom Paine's Age of\nReason, while it has the additional disadvantage of having been written\nby clergymen.\"\n\nHysterical as all this was, the Upper House was little more\nself-contained. Both Tait and Thirlwall, trying to make some headway\nagainst the swelling tide, were for a time beaten back by Wilberforce,\nwho insisted on the duty of the Church to clear itself publicly from\ncomplicity with men who, as he said, \"gave up God's Word, Creation,\nredemption, and the work of the Holy Ghost.\"\n\nThe matter was brought to a curious issue by two prosecutions--one\nagainst the Rev. Dr. Williams by the Bishop of Salisbury, the other\nagainst the Rev. Mr. Wilson by one of his clerical brethren. The first\nresult was that both these authors were sentenced to suspension from\ntheir offices for a year. At this the two condemned clergymen appealed\nto the Queen in Council. Upon the judicial committee to try the case in\nlast resort sat the lord chancellor, the two archbishops, and the Bishop\nof London; and one occurrence now brought into especial relief the power\nof the older theological reasoning and ecclesiastical zeal to close\nthe minds of the best of men to the simplest principles of right and\njustice. Among the men of his time most deservedly honoured for lofty\ncharacter, thorough scholarship, and keen perception of right and\njustice was Dr. Pusey. No one doubted then, and no one doubts now, that\nhe would have gone to the stake sooner than knowingly countenance wrong\nor injustice; and yet we find him at this time writing a series of\nlong and earnest letters to the Bishop of London, who, as a judge, was\nhearing this case, which involved the livelihood and even the good name\nof the men on trial, pointing out to the bishop the evil consequences\nwhich must follow should the authors of Essays and Reviews be acquitted,\nand virtually beseeching the judges, on grounds of expediency, to\nconvict them. Happily, Bishop Tait was too just a man to be thrown off\nhis bearings by appeals such as this.\n\nThe decision of the court, as finally rendered by the lord chancellor,\nvirtually declared it to be no part of the duty of the tribunal to\npronounce any opinion upon the book; that the court only had to do with\ncertain extracts which had been presented. Among these was one adduced\nin support of a charge against Mr. Wilson--that he denied the doctrine\nof eternal punishment. On this the court decided that it did \"not find\nin the formularies of the English Church any such distinct declaration\nupon the subject as to require it to punish the expression of a hope\nby a clergyman that even the ultimate pardon of the wicked who are\ncondemned in the day of judgment may be consistent with the will of\nAlmighty God.\" While the archbishops dissented from this judgment,\nBishop Tait united in it with the lord chancellor and the lay judges.\n\nAnd now the panic broke out more severely than ever. Confusion became\nworse confounded. The earnest-minded insisted that the tribunal had\nvirtually approved Essays and Reviews; the cynical remarked that it had\n\"dismissed hell with costs.\" An alliance was made at once between\nthe more zealous High and Low Church men, and Oxford became its\nheadquarters: Dr. Pusey and Archdeacon Denison were among the leaders,\nand an impassioned declaration was posted to every clergyman in England\nand Ireland, with a letter begging him, \"for the love of God,\" to sign\nit. Thus it was that in a very short time eleven thousand signatures\nwere obtained. Besides this, deputations claiming to represent one\nhundred and thirty-seven thousand laymen waited on the archbishops\nto thank them for dissenting from the judgment. The Convocation of\nCanterbury also plunged into the fray, Bishop Wilberforce being the\nchampion of the older orthodoxy, and Bishop Tait of the new. Caustic\nwas the speech made by Bishop Thirlwall, in which he declared that he\nconsidered the eleven thousand names, headed by that of Pusey, attached\nto the Oxford declaration \"in the light of a row of figures preceded\nby a decimal point, so that, however far the series may be advanced, it\nnever can rise to the value of a single unit.\"\n\nIn spite of all that could be done, the act of condemnation was carried\nin Convocation.\n\nThe last main echo of this whole struggle against the newer mode of\ninterpretation was heard when the chancellor, referring to the matter\nin the House of Lords, characterized the ecclesiastical act as \"simply a\nseries of well-lubricated terms--a sentence so oily and saponaceous that\nno one can grasp it; like an eel, it slips through your fingers, and is\nsimply nothing.\"\n\nThe word \"saponaceous\" necessarily elicited a bitter retort from Bishop\nWilberforce; but perhaps the most valuable judgment on the whole\nmatter was rendered by Bishop Tait, who declared, \"These things have\nso effectually frightened the clergy that I think there is scarcely a\nbishop on the bench, unless it be the Bishop of St. David's (Thirlwall),\nthat is not useless for the purpose of preventing the widespread\nalienation of intelligent men.\"\n\nDuring the whole controversy, and for some time afterward, the press was\nburdened with replies, ponderous and pithy, lurid and vapid, vitriolic\nand unctuous, but in the main bearing the inevitable characteristics of\npleas for inherited opinions stimulated by ample endowments.\n\nThe authors of the book seemed for a time likely to be swept out of\nthe Church. One of the least daring but most eminent, finding himself\napparently forsaken, seemed, though a man of very tough fibre, about to\ndie of a broken heart; but sturdy English sense at last prevailed. The\nstorm passed, and afterward came the still, small voice. Really sound\nthinkers throughout England, especially those who held no briefs for\nconventional orthodoxy, recognised the service rendered by the book. It\nwas found that, after all, there existed even among churchmen a great\nmass of public opinion in favour of giving a full hearing to the\nreverent expression of honest thought, and inclined to distrust any\ncause which subjected fair play to zeal.\n\nThe authors of the work not only remained in the Church of England, but\nsome of them have since represented the broader views, though not always\nwith their early courage, in the highest and most influential positions\nin the Anglican Church.(481)\n\n\n     (481) For the origin of Essays and Reviews, see Edinburgh Review, April,\n1861, p. 463. For the reception of the book, see the Westminster Review,\nOctober, 1860. For the attack on it by Bishop Wilberforce, see his\narticle in the Quarterly Review, January, 1861; for additional facts,\nEdinburgh Review, April, 1861, pp. 461 et seq. For action on the book\nby Convocation, see Dublin Review, May, 1861, citing Jelf et al.;\nalso Davidson's Life of Archbishop Tate, vol. i, chap. xii. For the\nArchepiscopal Letter, see Dublin Review, as above; also Life of Bishop\nWilberforce, by his son, London, 1882, vol. iii, pp. 4,5; it is there\nstated that Wilberforce drew upon the letter. For curious inside views\nof the Essays and Reviews controversy, including the course of Bishop\nHampden, Tait, et al., see Life of Bishop Wilberforce, by his son, as\nabove, pp. 3-11; also pp. 141-149. For the denunciation of the present\nBishop of London (Temple) as a \"leper,\" etc., see ibid., pp. 319, 320.\nFor general treatment of Temple, see Fraser's Magazine, December, 1869.\nFor very interesting correspondence, see Davidson's Life of Archbishop\nTait, as above. For Archdeacon Denison's speeches, see ibid, vol. i,\np. 302. For Dr. Pusey's letter to Bishop Tait, urging conviction of the\nEssayists and Reviewers, ibid, p. 314. For the striking letters of\nDr. Temple, ibid., pp. 290 et seq.; also The Life and Letters of Dean\nStanley. For replies, see Charge of the Bishop of Oxford, 1863;\nalso Replies to Essays and Reviews, Parker, London, with preface by\nWilberforce; also Aids to Faith, edited by the Bishop of Gloucester,\nLondon, 1861; also those by Jelf, Burgon, et al. For the legal\nproceedings, see Quarterly Review, April, 1864; also Davidson, as above.\nFor Bishop Thirlwall's speech, see Chronicle of Convocation, quoted in\nLife of Tait, vol. i, p. 320. For Tait's tribute to Thirlwall, see\nLife of Tait, vol. i, p. 325. For a remarkable able review, and in most\ncharming form, of the ideas of Bishop Wilberforce and Lord Chancellor\nWestbury, see H. D. Traill, The New Lucian, first dialogue. For the\ncynical phrase referred to, see Nash, Life of Lord Westbury, vol. ii, p.\n78, where the noted epitaph is given, as follows:\n\n            \"RICHARD BARON WESTBURY\n        Lord High Chancellor of England,\n          He was an eminent Christian,\n      An energetic and merciful Statesman,\n   And a still more eminent and merciful Judge.\n    During his three years' tenure of office\n  He abolished the ancient method of conveying land,\nThe time-honoured institution of the Insolvent's Court,                   And\n        The Eternity of Punishment.\n    Toward the close of his early career,\nIn the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,         He dismissed Hell with costs,\nAnd took away from the Orthodox members of the            Church of England\n   Their last hope of everlasting damnation.\"\n\n\n\n\nIV. THE CLOSING STRUGGLE.\n\nThe storm aroused by Essays and Reviews had not yet subsided when a far\nmore serious tempest burst upon the English theological world.\n\nIn 1862 appeared a work entitled The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua\nCritically Examined its author being Colenso, Anglican Bishop of Natal,\nin South Africa. He had formerly been highly esteemed as fellow and\ntutor at Cambridge, master at Harrow, author of various valuable\ntext-books in mathematics; and as long as he exercised his powers within\nthe limits of popular orthodoxy he was evidently in the way to the\nhighest positions in the Church: but he chose another path. His\ntreatment of his subject was reverent, but he had gradually come to\nthose conclusions, then so daring, now so widespread among Christian\nscholars, that the Pentateuch, with much valuable historical matter,\ncontains much that is unhistorical; that a large portion of it was\nthe work of a comparatively late period in Jewish history; that many\npassages in Deuteronomy could only have been written after the Jews\nsettled in Canaan; that the Mosaic law was not in force before the\ncaptivity; that the books of Chronicles were clearly written as an\nafterthought, to enforce the views of the priestly caste; and that in\nall the books there is much that is mythical and legendary.\n\nVery justly has a great German scholar recently adduced this work of a\nchurchman relegated to the most petty of bishoprics in one of the most\nremote corners of the world, as a proof \"that the problems of biblical\ncriticism can no longer be suppressed; that they are in the air of our\ntime, so that theology could not escape them even if it took the wings\nof the morning and dwelt in the uttermost parts of the sea.\"\n\nThe bishop's statements, which now seem so moderate, then aroused\nhorror. Especial wrath was caused by some of his arithmetical arguments,\nand among them those which showed that an army of six hundred thousand\nmen could not have been mobilized in a single night; that three millions\nof people, with their flocks and herds, could neither have obtained food\non so small and arid a desert as that over which they were said to have\nwandered during forty years, nor water from a single well; and that\nthe butchery of two hundred thousand Midianites by twelve thousand\nIsraelites, \"exceeding infinitely in atrocity the tragedy at Cawnpore,\nhad happily only been carried out on paper.\" There was nothing of the\nscoffer in him. While preserving his own independence, he had kept in\ntouch with the most earnest thought both among European scholars and in\nthe little flock intrusted to his care. He evidently remembered what had\nresulted from the attempt to hold the working classes in the towns of\nFrance, Germany, and Italy to outworn beliefs; he had found even the\nZulus, whom he thought to convert, suspicious of the legendary features\nof the Old Testament, and with his clear practical mind he realized the\ndanger which threatened the English Church and Christianity--the danger\nof tying its religion and morality to interpretations and conceptions of\nScripture more and more widely seen and felt to be contrary to facts. He\nsaw the especial peril of sham explanations, of covering up facts which\nmust soon be known, and which, when revealed, must inevitably bring\nthe plain people of England to regard their teachers, even the most\ndeserving, as \"solemnly constituted impostors\"--ecclesiastics whose\ntenure depends on assertions which they know to be untrue. Therefore it\nwas that, when his catechumens questioned him regarding some of the Old\nTestament legends, the bishop determined to tell the truth. He says: \"My\nheart answered in the words of the prophet, 'Shall a man speak lies in\nthe name of the Lord?' I determined not to do so.\"\n\nBut none of these considerations availed in his behalf at first.\n\nThe outcry against the work was deafening: churchmen and dissenters\nrushed forward to attack it. Archdeacon Denison, chairman of the\ncommittee of Convocation appointed to examine it, uttered a noisy\nanathema. Convocation solemnly condemned it; and a zealous colonial\nbishop, relying upon a nominal supremacy, deposed and excommunicated\nits author, declaring him \"given over to Satan.\" On both sides of\nthe Atlantic the press groaned with \"answers,\" some of these being\nespecially injurious to the cause they were intended to serve, and none\nmore so than sundry efforts by the bishops themselves. One of the points\nupon which they attacked him was his assertion that the reference in\nLeviticus to the hare chewing its cud contains an error. Upon this\nProf. Hitzig, of Leipsic, one of the best Hebrew scholars of his time,\nremarked: \"Your bishops are making themselves the laughing-stock of\nEurope. Every Hebraist knows that the animal mentioned in Leviticus\nis really the hare;... every zoologist knows that it does not chew the\ncud.\"(482)\n\n\n     (482) For the citation referred to, see Pfleiderer, as above, book iv,\nchap. ii. For the passages referred to as provoking especial wrath, see\nColenso, Lectures on the Pentateuch and the Moabite Stone, 1876, p. 217.\nFor the episode regarding the hare chewing the cud, see Cox, Life of\nColenso, vol. i, p. 240. The following epigram went the rounds:\n\n\"The bishops all have sworn to shed their blood To prove 'tis true\nthat the hare doth chew the cud. O bishops, doctors, and divines,\nbeware--Weak is the faith that hangs upon a HAIR!\"\n\n\nOn Colenso's return to Natal, where many of the clergy and laity who\nfelt grateful for his years of devotion to them received him with signs\nof affection, an attempt was made to ruin these clergymen by depriving\nthem of their little stipends, and to terrify the simple-minded laity by\nthreatening them with the same \"greater excommunication\" which had been\ninflicted upon their bishop. To make the meaning of this more evident,\nthe vicar-general of the Bishop of Cape Town met Colenso at the door of\nhis own cathedral, and solemnly bade him \"depart from the house of\nGod as one who has been handed over to the Evil One.\" The sentence of\nexcommunication was read before the assembled faithful, and they were\nenjoined to treat their bishop as \"a heathen man and a publican.\" But\nthese and a long series of other persecutions created a reaction in his\nfavour.\n\nThere remained to Colenso one bulwark which his enemies found stronger\nthan they had imagined--the British courts of justice. The greatest\nefforts were now made to gain the day before these courts, to humiliate\nColenso, and to reduce to beggary the clergy who remained faithful to\nhim; and it is worthy of note that one of the leaders in preparing the\nlegal plea of the com mittee against him was Mr. Gladstone.\n\nBut this bulwark proved impregnable: both the Judicial Committee of the\nPrivy Council and the Rolls Court decided in Colenso's favour. Not only\nwere his enemies thus forbidden to deprive him of his salary, but their\nexcommunication of him was made null and void; it became, indeed, a\nsubject of ridicule, and even a man so nurtured in religious sentiment\nas John Keble confessed and lamented that the English people no longer\nbelieved in excommunication. The bitterness of the defeated found vent\nin the utterances of the colonial metropolitan who had excommunicated\nColenso--Bishop Gray, \"the Lion of Cape Town\"--who denounced the\njudgment as \"awful and profane,\" and the Privy Council as \"a\nmasterpiece of Satan\" and \"the great dragon of the English Church.\" Even\nWilberforce, careful as he was to avoid attacking anything established,\nalluded with deep regret to \"the devotion of the English people to the\nlaw in matters of this sort.\"\n\nTheir failure in the courts only seemed to increase the violence of the\nattacking party. The Anglican communion, both in England and America,\nwas stirred to its depths against the heretic, and various dissenting\nbodies strove to show equal zeal. Great pains were taken to root out\nhis reputation: it was declared that he had merely stolen the ideas\nof rationalists on the Continent by wholesale, and peddled them out in\nEngland at retail; the fact being that, while he used all the sources of\ninformation at his command, and was large-minded enough to put himself\ninto relations with the best biblical scholarship of the Continent, he\nwas singularly independent in his judgment, and that his investigations\nwere of lasting value in modifying Continental thought. Kuenen, the most\ndistinguished of all his contemporaries in this field, modified, as\nhe himself declared, one of his own leading theories after reading\nColenso's argument; and other Continental scholars scarcely less\neminent acknowledged their great indebtedness to the English scholar for\noriginal suggestions.(483)\n\n\n     (483) For interesting details of the Colenso persecution, see Davidson's\nLife of Tait, chaps. xii and xiv; also the Lives of Bishops Wilberforce\nand Gray. For full accounts of the struggle, see Cox, Life of Bishop\nColenso, London, 1888, especially vol. i, chap. v. For the dramatic\nperformance at Colenso's cathedral, see vol. ii, pp. 14-25. For a very\nimpartial and appreciative statement regarding Colenso's work, see\nCheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism, London, 1893, chap. ix. For\ntestimony to the originality and value of Colenso's contributions, see\nKuenen, Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch, Introduction, pp. xx,\nas follows: \"Colenso directed my attention to difficulties which I had\nhitherto failed to observe or adequately to reckon with; and as to\nthe opinion of his labours current in Germany, I need only say that,\ninasmuch as Ewald, Bunsen, Bleek, and Knabel were every one of them\nlogically forced to revise their theories in the light of the English\nbishop's research, there was small reason in the cry that his methods\nwere antiquated and his objections stale.\" For a very brief but\neffective tribute to Colenso as an independent thinker whose merits are\nnow acknowledged by Continental scholars, see Pfleiderer, Development of\nTheory, as above.\n\n\nBut the zeal of the bishop's enemies did not end with calumny. He was\nsocially ostracized--more completely even than Lyell had been after the\npublication of his Principles of Geology thirty years before. Even\nold friends left him, among them Frederick Denison Maurice, who, when\nhimself under the ban of heresy, had been defended by Colenso. Nor was\nMaurice the only heretic who turned against him; Matthew Arnold attacked\nhim, and set up, as a true ideal of the work needed to improve the\nEnglish Church and people, of all books in the world, Spinoza's\nTractatus. A large part of the English populace was led to regard him\nas an \"infidel,\" a \"traitor,\" an \"apostate,\" and even as \"an unclean\nbeing\"; servants left his house in horror; \"Tray, Blanche, and\nSweetheart were let loose upon him\"; and one of the favourite amusements\nof the period among men of petty wit and no convictions was the devising\nof light ribaldry against him.(484)\n\n\n     (484) One of the nonsense verses in vogue at the time summed up the\ncontroversy as follows:\n\n     \"A bishop there was of Natal,\n       Who had a Zulu for his pal;\n     Said the Zulu, 'My dear,\n       Don't you think Genesis queer?'\n     Which coverted my lord of Natal.\"\n\nBut verses quite as good appeared on the other side, one of them being\nas follows:\n\n     \"Is this, then, the great Colenso,\n       Who all the bishops offends so?\n     Said Sam of the Soap,\n       Bring fagots and rope,\n     For oh! he's got no friends, oh!\"\n\nFor Matthew Arnold's attack on Colenso, see Macmillan's Magazine,\nJanuary, 1863. For Maurice, see the references already given.\n\n\nIn the midst of all this controversy stood three men, each of whom has\nconnected his name with it permanently.\n\nFirst of these was Samuel Wilberforce, at that time Bishop of Oxford.\nThe gifted son of William Wilberforce, who had been honoured throughout\nthe world for his efforts in the suppression of the slave trade, he\nhad been rapidly advanced in the English Church, and was at this time\na prelate of wide influence. He was eloquent and diplomatic, witty and\namiable, always sure to be with his fellow-churchmen and polite society\nagainst uncomfortable changes. Whether the struggle was against the\nslave power in the United States, or the squirearchy in Great Britain,\nor the evolution theory of Darwin, or the new views promulgated by the\nEssayists and Reviewers, he was always the suave spokesman of those\nwho opposed every innovator and \"besought him to depart out of their\ncoasts.\" Mingling in curious proportions a truly religious feeling with\ncare for his own advancement, his remarkable power in the pulpit gave\nhim great strength to carry out his purposes, and his charming facility\nin being all things to all men, as well as his skill in evading the\nconsequences of his many mistakes, gained him the sobriquet of \"Soapy\nSam.\" If such brethren of his in the episcopate as Thirlwall and Selwyn\nand Tait might claim to be in the apostolic succession, Wilberforce\nwas no less surely in the succession from the most gifted and eminently\nrespectable Sadducees who held high preferment under Pontius Pilate.\n\nBy a curious coincidence he had only a few years before preached the\nsermon when Colenso was consecrated in Westminster Abbey, and one\npassage in it may be cited as showing the preacher's gift of prophecy\nboth hortatory and predictive. Wilberforce then said to Colenso:\n\"You need boldness to risk all for God--to stand by the truth and its\nsupporters against men's threatenings and the devil's wrath;... you need\na patient meekness to bear the galling calumnies and false surmises\nwith which, if you are faithful, that same Satanic working, which, if it\ncould, would burn your body, will assuredly assail you daily through the\npens and tongues of deceivers and deceived, who, under a semblance of\na zeal for Christ, will evermore distort your words, misrepresent your\nmotives, rejoice in your failings, exaggerate your errors, and seek\nby every poisoned breath of slander to destroy your powers of\nservice.\"(485)\n\n\n     (485) For the social ostracism of Colenso, see works already cited; also\nCox's Life of Colenso. For the passage from Wilberforce's sermon at the\nconsecration of Colenso, see Rev. Sir G. W. Cox, The Church of England\nand the Teaching of Bishop Colenso. For Wilberforce's relations to the\nColenso case in general, see his Life, by his son, vol. iii, especially\npp. 113-126, 229-231. For Keble's avowal that no Englishman believes\nin excommunication, ibid., p. 128. For a guarded statement of Dean\nStanley's opinion regarding Wilberforce and Newman, see a letter from\nDean Church to the Warden of Keble, in Life and Letters of Dean Church,\np. 293.\n\n\nUnfortunately, when Colenso followed this advice his adviser became\nthe most untiring of his persecutors. While leaving to men like the\nMetropolitan of Cape Town and Archdeacon Denison the noisy part of the\nonslaught, Wilberforce was among those who were most zealous in devising\nmore effective measures.\n\nBut time, and even short time, has redressed the balance between the two\nprelates. Colenso is seen more and more of all men as a righteous leader\nin a noble effort to cut the Church loose from fatal entanglements with\nan outworn system of interpretation; Wilberforce, as the remembrance\nof his eloquence and of his personal charm dies away, and as the\nrevelations of his indiscreet biographers lay bare his modes of\nprocedure, is seen to have left, on the whole, the most disappointing\nrecord made by any Anglican prelate during the nineteenth century.\n\nBut there was a far brighter page in the history of the Church of\nEngland; for the second of the three who linked their names with that of\nColenso in the struggle was Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, Dean of Westminster.\nHis action during this whole persecution was an honour not only to the\nAnglican Church but to humanity. For his own manhood and the exercise\nof his own intellectual freedom he had cheerfully given up the high\npreferment in the Church which had been easily within his grasp. To\nhim truth and justice were more than the decrees of a Convocation of\nCanterbury or of a Pan-Anglican Synod; in this as in other matters he\nbraved the storm, never yielded to theological prejudice, from first to\nlast held out a brotherly hand to the persecuted bishop, and at the most\ncritical moment opened to him the pulpit of Westminster Abbey.(486)\n\n\n     (486) For interesting testimony to Stanley's character, from a quarter\nfrom whence it would have been least expected, see a reminiscence of\nLord Shaftesbury in the Life of Frances Power Cobbe, London and New\nYork, 1894. The late Bishop of Massachusetts, Phillips Brooks, whose\ndeath was a bereavement to his country and to the Church universal, once\ngave the present writer a vivid description of a scene witnessed by him\nin the Convocation of Canterbury, when Stanley virtually withstood alone\nthe obstinate traditionalism of the whole body in the matter of the\nAthanasian Creed. It is to be hoped that this account may be brought to\nlight among the letters written by Brooks at that time. See also Dean\nChurch's Life and Letters, p. 294, for a very important testimony.\n\n\nThe third of the high ecclesiastics of the Church of England whose\nnames were linked in this contest was Thirlwall. He was undoubtedly\nthe foremost man in the Church of his time--the greatest ecclesiastical\nstatesman, the profoundest historical scholar, the theologian of\nclearest vision in regard to the relations between the Church and his\nepoch. Alone among his brother bishops at this period, he stood \"four\nsquare to all the winds that blew,\" as during all his life he stood\nagainst all storms of clerical or popular unreason. He had his reward.\nHe was never advanced beyond a poor Welsh bishopric; but, though he\nsaw men wretchedly inferior constantly promoted beyond him, he never\nflinched, never lost heart or hope, but bore steadily on, refusing to\nhold a brief for lucrative injustice, and resisting to the last all\nreaction and fanaticism, thus preserving not only his own self-respect\nbut the future respect of the English nation for the Church.\n\nA few other leading churchmen were discreetly kind to Colenso, among\nthem Tait, who had now been made Archbishop of Canterbury; but, manly as\nhe was, he was somewhat more cautious in this matter than those who most\nrevere his memory could now wish.\n\nIn spite of these friends the clerical onslaught was for a time\neffective; Colenso, so far as England was concerned, was discredited and\nvirtually driven from his functions. But this enforced leisure simply\ngave him more time to struggle for the protection of his native flock\nagainst colonial rapacity and to continue his great work on the Bible.\n\nHis work produced its effect. It had much to do with arousing a new\ngeneration of English, Scotch, and American scholars. While very many\nof his minor statements have since been modified or rejected, his main\nconclusion was seen more and more clearly to be true. Reverently and in\nthe deepest love for Christianity he had made the unhistorical character\nof the Pentateuch clear as noonday. Henceforth the crushing weight of\nthe old interpretation upon science and morality and religion steadily\nand rapidly grew less and less. That a new epoch had come was evident,\nand out of many proofs of this we may note two of the most striking.\n\nFor many years the Bampton Lectures at Oxford had been considered as\nadding steadily and strongly to the bulwarks of the old orthodoxy. If\nnow and then orthodoxy had appeared in danger from such additions to the\nseries as those made by Dr. Hampden, these lectures had been, as a rule,\nsaturated with the older traditions of the Anglican Church. But now\nthere was an evident change. The departures from the old paths were many\nand striking, until at last, in 1893, came the lectures on Inspiration\nby the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Ireland Professor of Exegesis in the University\nof Oxford. In these, concessions were made to the newer criticism, which\nat an earlier time would have driven the lecturer not only out of the\nChurch but out of any decent position in society; for Prof. Sanday\nnot only gave up a vast mass of other ideas which the great body\nof churchmen had regarded as fundamental, but accepted a number of\nconclusions established by the newer criticism. He declared that Kuenen\nand Wellhausen had mapped out, on the whole rightly, the main stages of\ndevelopment in the history of Hebrew literature; he incorporated with\napproval the work of other eminent heretics; he acknowledged that very\nmany statements in the Pentateuch show \"the naive ideas and usages of\na primitive age.\" But, most important of all, he gave up the whole\nquestion in regard to the book of Daniel. Up to a time then very recent,\nthe early authorship and predictive character of the book of Daniel were\nthings which no one was allowed for a moment to dispute. Pusey, as we\nhave seen, had proved to the controlling parties in the English Church\nthat Christianity must stand or fall with the traditional view of this\nbook; and now, within a few years of Pusey's death, there came, in his\nown university, speaking from the pulpit of St. Mary's whence he had\nso often insisted upon the absolute necessity of maintaining the older\nview, this professor of biblical criticism, a doctor of divinity,\nshowing conclusively as regards the book of Daniel that the critical\nview had won the day; that the name of Daniel is only assumed; that the\nbook is in no sense predictive, but was written, mainly at least, after\nthe events it describes; that \"its author lived at the time of the\nMaccabean struggle\"; that it is very inaccurate even in the simple facts\nwhich it cites; and hence that all the vast fabric erected upon its\npredictive character is baseless.\n\nBut another evidence of the coming in of a new epoch was even more\nstriking.\n\nTo uproot every growth of the newer thought, to destroy even every germ\nthat had been planted by Colenso and men like him, a special movement\nwas begun, of which the most important part was the establishment,\nat the University of Oxford, of a college which should bring the old\nopinion with crushing force against the new thought, and should train up\na body of young men by feeding them upon the utterances of the fathers,\nof the medieval doctors, and of the apologists of the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries; and should keep them in happy ignorance of the\nreforming spirit of the sixteenth and the scientific spirit of the\nnineteenth century.\n\nThe new college thus founded bore the name of the poet most widely\nbeloved among high churchmen; large endowments flowed in upon it; a\nshowy chapel was erected in accordance throughout with the strictest\nrules of medieval ecclesiology. As if to strike the keynote of the\nthought to be fostered in the new institution, one of the most beautiful\nof pseudo-medieval pictures was given the place of honour in its hall;\nand the college, lofty and gaudy, loomed high above the neighbouring\nmodest abode of Oxford science. Kuenen might be victorious in Holland,\nand Wellhausen in Germany, and Robertson Smith in Scotland--even\nProfessors Driver, Sanday, and Cheyne might succeed Dr. Pusey as\nexpounders of the Old Testament at Oxford--but Keble College, rejoicing\nin the favour of a multitude of leaders in the Church, including Mr.\nGladstone, seemed an inexpugnable fortress of the older thought.\n\nBut in 1889 appeared the book of essays entitled Lux Mundi, among whose\nleading authors were men closely connected with Keble College and\nwith the movement which had created it. This work gave up entirely the\ntradition that the narrative in Genesis is a historical record, and\nadmitted that all accounts in the Hebrew Scriptures of events before the\ntime of Abraham are mythical and legendary; it conceded that the books\nascribed to Moses and Joshua were made up mainly of three documents\nrepresenting different periods, and one of them the late period of the\nexile; that \"there is a considerable idealizing element in Old Testament\nhistory\"; that \"the books of Chronicles show an idealizing of history\"\nand \"a reading back into past records of a ritual development which\nis really later,\" and that prophecy is not necessarily\npredictive--\"prophetic inspiration being consistent with erroneous\nanticipations.\" Again a shudder went through the upholders of tradition\nin the Church, and here and there threats were heard; but the Essays\nand Reviews fiasco and the Colenso catastrophe were still in vivid\nremembrance. Good sense prevailed: Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury,\ninstead of prosecuting the authors, himself asked the famous question,\n\"May not the Holy Spirit make use of myth and legend?\" and the\nGovernment, not long afterward, promoted one of these authors to a\nbishopric.(487)\n\n\n     (487) Of Pusey's extreme devotion to his view of the book of Daniel,\nthere is a curious evidence in a letter to Stanley in the second volume\nof the latter's Life and Letters. For the views referred to in Lux\nMundi, see pp. 345-357; also, on the general subject, Bishop Ellicott's\nChristus Comprobator.\n\n\nIn the sister university the same tendency was seen. Robertson Smith,\nwho had been driven out of his high position in the Free Church of\nScotland on account of his work in scriptural research, was welcomed\ninto a professorship at Cambridge, and other men, no less loyal to the\nnew truths, were given places of controlling influence in shaping the\nthought of the new generation.\n\nNor did the warfare against biblical science produce any different\nresults among the dissenters of England. In 1862 Samuel Davidson, a\nprofessor in the Congregational College at Manchester, published his\nIntroduction to the Old Testament. Independently of the contemporary\nwriters of Essays and Reviews, he had arrived in a general way at\nconclusions much like theirs, and he presented the newer view with\nfearless honesty, admitting that the same research must be applied\nto these as to other Oriental sacred books, and that such research\nestablishes the fact that all alike contain legendary and mythical\nelements. A storm was at once aroused; certain denominational papers\ntook up the matter, and Davidson was driven from his professorial chair;\nbut he laboured bravely on, and others followed to take up his work,\nuntil the ideas which he had advocated were fully considered.\n\nSo, too, in Scotland the work of Robertson Smith was continued even\nafter he had been driven into England; and, as votaries of the older\nthought passed away, men of ideas akin to his were gradually elected\ninto chairs of biblical criticism and interpretation. Wellhausen's great\nwork, which Smith had introduced in English form, proved a power both in\nEngland and Scotland, and the articles upon various books of Scripture\nand scriptural subjects generally, in the ninth edition of the\nEncyclopaedia Britannica, having been prepared mainly by himself as\neditor or put into the hands of others representing the recent critical\nresearch, this very important work of reference, which had been in\nprevious editions so timid, was now arrayed on the side of the newer\nthought, insuring its due consideration wherever the English language is\nspoken.\n\nIn France the same tendency was seen, though with striking variations\nfrom the course of events in other countries--variations due to the\nvery different conditions under which biblical students in France\nwere obliged to work. Down to the middle of the nineteenth century the\northodoxy of Bossuet, stiffly opposing the letter of Scripture to\nevery step in the advance of science, had only yielded in a very slight\ndegree. But then came an event ushering in a new epoch. At that time\nJules Simon, afterward so eminent as an author, academician, and\nstatesman, was quietly discharging the duties of a professorship, when\nthere was brought him the visiting card of a stranger bearing the\nname of \"Ernest Renan, Student at St. Sulpice.\" Admitted to M. Simon's\nlibrary, Renan told his story. As a theological student he had devoted\nhimself most earnestly, even before he entered the seminary, to the\nstudy of Hebrew and the Semitic languages, and he was now obliged,\nduring the lectures on biblical literature at St. Sulpice, to hear the\nreverend professor make frequent comments, based on the Vulgate, but\nabsolutely disproved by Renan's own knowledge of Hebrew. On Renan's\nquestioning any interpretation of the lecturer, the latter was wont\nto rejoin: \"Monsieur, do you presume to deny the authority of the\nVulgate--the translation by St. Jerome, sanctioned by the Holy Ghost and\nthe Church? You will at once go into the chapel and say 'Hail Mary' for\nan hour before the image of the Blessed Virgin.\"\n\n\"But,\" said Renan to Jules Simon, \"this has now become very serious; it\nhappens nearly every day, and, MON DIEU! Monsieur, I can not spend ALL\nmy time in saying, Hail Mary, before the statue of the Virgin.\" The\nresult was a warm personal attachment between Simon and Renan; both were\nBretons, educated in the midst of the most orthodox influences, and both\nhad unwillingly broken away from them.\n\nRenan was now emancipated, and pursued his studies with such effect that\nhe was made professor at the College de France. His Life of Jesus, and\nother books showing the same spirit, brought a tempest upon him which\ndrove him from his professorship and brought great hardships upon him\nfor many years. But his genius carried the day, and, to the honour of\nthe French Republic, he was restored to the position from which the\nEmpire had driven him. From his pen finally appeared the Histoire du\nPeuple Israel, in which scholarship broad, though at times inaccurate in\nminor details, was supplemented by an exquisite acuteness and a poetic\ninsight which far more than made good any of those lesser errors which a\nGerman student would have avoided. At his death, in October, 1892, this\nmonumental work had been finished. In clearness and beauty of style it\nhas never been approached by any other treatise on this or any kindred\nsubject: it is a work of genius; and its profound insight into all that\nis of importance in the great subjects which he treated will doubtless\ncause it to hold a permanent place in the literature not only of the\nLatin nations but of the world.\n\nAn interesting light is thrown over the history of advancing thought at\nthe end of the nineteenth century by the fact that this most detested of\nheresiarchs was summoned to receive the highest of academic honours\nat the university which for ages had been regarded as a stronghold of\nPresbyterian orthodoxy in Great Britain.\n\nIn France the anathemas lavished upon him by Church authorities during\nhis life, their denial to him of Christian burial, and their refusal\nto allow him a grave in the place he most loved, only increased popular\naffection for him during his last years and deepened the general\nmourning at his death.(488)\n\n\n     (488) For a remarkably just summary of Renan's work, eminently judicial\nand at the same time deeply appreciative, see the Rev. Dr. Pfleiderer,\nprofessor at the University of Berlin, Development of Theology in\nGermany, pp. 241, 242, note. The facts as to the early relations between\nRenan and Jules Simon were told in 1878 by the latter to the present\nwriter at considerable length and with many interesting details not here\ngiven. The writer was also present at the public funeral of the great\nscholar, and can testify of his own knowledge to the deep and hearty\nevidences of gratitude and respect then paid to Renan, not merely by\neminent orators and scholars, but by the people at large. As to the\nrefusal of the place of burial that Renan especially chose, see his own\nSouvenirs, in which he laments the inevitable exclusion of his grave\nfrom the site which he most loved. As to calumnies, one masterpiece,\nvery widely spread, through the zeal of clerical journals, was that\nRenan received enormous sums from the Rothschilds for attacking\nChristianity.\n\n\nIn spite of all resistance, the desire for more light upon the sacred\nbooks penetrated the older Church from every side.\n\nIn Germany, toward the close of the eighteenth century, Jahn, Catholic\nprofessor at Vienna, had ventured, in an Introduction to Old Testament\nStudy, to class Job, Jonah, and Tobit below other canonical books,\nand had only escaped serious difficulties by ample amends in a second\nedition.\n\nEarly in the nineteenth century, Herbst, Catholic professor at Tubingen,\nhad endeavoured in a similar Introduction to bring modern research to\nbear on the older view; but the Church authorities took care to have all\npassages really giving any new light skilfully and speedily edited out\nof the book.\n\nLater still, Movers, professor at Breslau, showed remarkable gifts\nfor Old Testament research, and much was expected of him; but his\necclesiastical superiors quietly prevented his publishing any extended\nwork.\n\nDuring the latter half of the nineteenth century much the same pressure\nhas continued in Catholic Germany. Strong scholars have very generally\nbeen drawn into the position of \"apologists\" or \"reconcilers,\" and, when\nfound intractable, they have been driven out of the Church.\n\nThe same general policy had been evident in France and Italy, but toward\nthe last decade of the century it was seen by the more clear-sighted\nsupporters of the older Church in those countries that the multifarious\n\"refutations\" and explosive attacks upon Renan and his teachings had\naccomplished nothing; that even special services of atonement for his\nsin, like the famous \"Triduo\" at Florence, only drew a few women, and\nprovoked ridicule among the public at large; that throwing him out of\nhis professorship and calumniating him had but increased his influence;\nand that his brilliant intuitions, added to the careful researches of\nGerman and English scholars, had brought the thinking world beyond\nthe reach of the old methods of hiding troublesome truths and crushing\npersistent truth-tellers.\n\nTherefore it was that about 1890 a body of earnest Roman Catholic\nscholars began very cautiously to examine and explain the biblical\ntext in the light of those results of the newer research which could no\nlonger be gainsaid.\n\nAmong these men were, in Italy, Canon Bartolo, Canon Berta, and Father\nSavi, and in France Monseigneur d'Hulst, the Abbe Loisy, professor\nat the Roman Catholic University at Paris, and, most eminent of all,\nProfessor Lenormant, of the French Institute, whose researches\ninto biblical and other ancient history and literature had won him\ndistinction throughout the world. These men, while standing up manfully\nfor the Church, were obliged to allow that some of the conclusions of\nmodern biblical criticism were well founded. The result came rapidly.\nThe treatise of Bartolo and the great work of Lenormant were placed on\nthe Index; Canon Berta was overwhelmed with reproaches and virtually\nsilenced; the Abbe Loisy was first deprived of his professorship, and\nthen ignominiously expelled from the university; Monseigneur d'Hulst was\nsummoned to Rome, and has since kept silence.(489)\n\n\n     (489) For the frustration of attempts to admit light into scriptural\nstudies in Roman Catholic Germany, see Bleek, Old Testament, London,\n1882, vol. i, pp. 19, 20. For the general statement regarding recent\nsuppression of modern biblical study in France and Italy, see an article\nby a Roman Catholic author in the Contemporary Review, September, 1894,\np. 365. For the papal condemnations of Lenormant and Bartolo, see the\nIndex Librorum Prohibitorum Sanctissimi Domini Nostri, Leonis XIII,\nP.M., etc., Rome, 1891; Appendices, July, 1890, and May, 1891. The\nghastly part of the record, as stated in this edition of the Index, is\nthat both these great scholars were forced to abjure their \"errors\" and\nto acquiesce in the condemnation--Lenorment doing this on his deathbed.\n\n\nThe matter was evidently thought serious in the higher regions of the\nChurch, for in November, 1893, appeared an encyclical letter by the\nreigning Pope, Leo XIII, on The Study of Sacred Scripture.\n\nMuch was expected from it, for, since Benedict XIV in the last century,\nthere had sat on the papal throne no Pope intellectually so competent\nto discuss the whole subject. While, then, those devoted to the older\nbeliefs trusted that the papal thunderbolts would crush the whole brood\nof biblical critics, votaries of the newer thought ventured to hope\nthat the encyclical might, in the language of one of them, prove \"a\nstupendous bridge spanning the broad abyss that now divides alleged\northodoxy from established science.\"(490)\n\n\n     (490) For this statement, see an article in the Contemporary Review,\nApril, 1894, p. 576.\n\n\nBoth these expectations were disappointed; and yet, on the whole, it is\na question whether the world at large may not congratulate itself upon\nthis papal utterance. The document, if not apostolic, won credit as\n\"statesmanlike.\" It took pains, of course, to insist that there can be\nno error of any sort in the sacred books; it even defended those parts\nwhich Protestants count apocryphal as thoroughly as the remainder of\nScripture, and declared that the book of Tobit was not compiled of\nman, but written by God. His Holiness naturally condemned the higher\ncriticism, but he dwelt at the same time on the necessity of the\nmost thorough study of the sacred Scriptures, and especially on the\nimportance of adjusting scriptural statements to scientific facts. This\nutterance was admirably oracular, being susceptible of cogent quotation\nby both sides: nothing could be in better form from an orthodox point of\nview; but, with that statesmanlike forecast which the present Pope has\nshown more than once in steering the bark of St. Peter over the troubled\nwaves of the nineteenth century, he so far abstained from condemning any\nof the greater results of modern critical study that the main English\ndefender of the encyclical, the Jesuit Father Clarke, did not hesitate\npublicly to admit a multitude of such results--results, indeed, which\nwould shock not only Italian and Spanish Catholics, but many English\nand American Protestants. According to this interpreter, the Pope had\nno thought of denying the variety of documents in the Pentateuch, or the\nplurality of sources of the books of Samuel, or the twofold authorship\nof Isaiah, or that all after the ninth verse of the last chapter of St.\nMark's Gospel is spurious; and, as regards the whole encyclical, the\ndistinguished Jesuit dwelt significantly on the power of the papacy at\nany time to define out of existence any previous decisions which may\nbe found inconvenient. More than that, Father Clarke himself, while\nstanding as the champion of the most thorough orthodoxy, acknowledged\nthat, in the Old Testament, \"numbers must be expected to be used\nOrientally,\" and that \"all these seventies and forties, as, for example,\nwhen Absalom is said to have rebelled against David for forty years, can\nnot possibly be meant numerically\"; and, what must have given a fearful\nshock to some Protestant believers in plenary inspiration, he, while\nadvocating it as a dutiful Son of the Church, wove over it an exquisite\nweb with the declaration that \"there is a human element in the Bible\npre-calculated for by the Divine.\"(491)\n\n\n     (491) For these admissions of Father Clarke, see his article The Papal\nEncyclical on the Bible, in the Contemporary Review for July, 1894.\n\n\nConsidering the difficulties in the case, the world has reason to be\ngrateful to Pope Leo and Father Clarke for these utterances, which\nperhaps, after all, may prove a better bridge between the old and the\nnew than could have been framed by engineers more learned but less\nastute. Evidently Pope Leo XIII is neither a Paul V nor an Urban VIII,\nand is too wise to bring the Church into a position from which it can\nonly be extricated by such ludicrous subterfuges as those by which it\nwas dragged out of the Galileo scandal, or by such a tortuous policy as\nthat by which it writhed out of the old doctrine regarding the taking of\ninterest for money.\n\nIn spite, then, of the attempted crushing out of Bartolo and Berta and\nSavi and Lenormant and Loisy, during this very epoch in which the Pope\nissued this encyclical, there is every reason to hope that the path\nhas been paved over which the Church may gracefully recede from the old\nsystem of interpretation and quietly accept and appropriate the main\nresults of the higher criticism. Certainly she has never had a better\nopportunity to play at the game of \"beggar my neighbour\" and to drive\nthe older Protestant orthodoxy into bankruptcy.\n\nIn America the same struggle between the old ideas and the new went on.\nIn the middle years of the century the first adequate effort in behalf\nof the newer conception of the sacred books was made by Theodore\nParker at Boston. A thinker brave and of the widest range,--a scholar\nindefatigable and of the deepest sympathies with humanity,--a man called\nby one of the most eminent scholars in the English Church \"a religious\nTitan,\" and by a distinguished French theologian \"a prophet,\" he had\nstruggled on from the divinity school until at that time he was one\nof the foremost biblical scholars, and preacher to the largest regular\ncongregation on the American continent. The great hall in Boston could\nseat four thousand people, and at his regular discourses every part\nof it was filled. In addition to his pastoral work he wielded a vast\ninfluence as a platform speaker, especially in opposition to the\nextension of slavery into the Territories of the United States, and as\na lecturer on a wide range of vital topics; and among those whom he most\nprofoundly influenced, both politically and religiously, was Abraham\nLincoln. During each year at that period he was heard discussing the\nmost important religious and political questions in all the greater\nNorthern cities; but his most lasting work was in throwing light upon\nour sacred Scriptures, and in this he was one of the forerunners of\nthe movement now going on not only in the United States but throughout\nChristendom. Even before he was fairly out of college his translation of\nDe Wette's Introduction to the Old Testament made an impression on many\nthoughtful men; his sermon in 1841 on The Transient and Permanent in\nChristianity marked the beginning of his great individual career;\nhis speeches, his lectures, and especially his Discourse on Matters\npertaining to Religion, greatly extended his influence. His was a deeply\ndevotional nature, and his public prayers exercised by their touching\nbeauty a very strong religious influence upon his audiences. He had his\nreward. Beautiful and noble as were his life and his life-work, he was\nwidely abhorred. On one occasion of public worship in one of the more\northodox churches, news having been received that he was dangerously\nill, a prayer was openly made by one of the zealous brethren present\nthat this arch-enemy might be removed from earth. He was even driven out\nfrom the Unitarian body. But he was none the less steadfast and bold,\nand the great mass of men and women who thronged his audience room at\nBoston and his lecture rooms in other cities spread his ideas. His fate\nwas pathetic. Full of faith and hope, but broken prematurely by his\nlabours, he retired to Italy, and died there at the darkest period in\nthe history of the United States--when slavery in the state and the\nolder orthodoxy in the Church seemed absolutely and forever triumphant.\nThe death of Moses within sight of the promised land seems the only\nparallel to the death of Parker less than six months before the\npublication of Essays and Reviews and the election of Abraham Lincoln to\nthe presidency, of the United States.(492)\n\n\n     (492) For the appellation \"religious Titan\" applied to Theodore Parker,\nsee a letter of Jowett, Master of Balliol, to Frances Power Cobbe, in\nher Autobiography, vol. 1, p. 357, and for Reville's statement, ibid.,\np. 9. For a pathetic account of Parker's last hours at Florence, ibid.,\nvol. i, pp. 10, 11. As to the influence of Theodore Parker on Lincoln,\nsee Rhodes's History of the United States, as above, vol. ii, p. 312.\nFor the statement regarding Parker's audiences and his power over them,\nthe present writer trusts to his own memory.\n\n\nBut here it must be noted that Parker's effort was powerfully aided by\nthe conscientious utterances of some of his foremost opponents. Nothing\nduring the American struggle against the slave system did more to wean\nreligious and God-fearing men and women from the old interpretation of\nScripture than the use of it to justify slavery. Typical among examples\nof this use were the arguments of Hopkins, Bishop of Vermont, a man\nwhose noble character and beautiful culture gave him very wide influence\nin all branches of the American Protestant Church. While avowing his\npersonal dislike to slavery, he demonstrated that the Bible sanctioned\nit. Other theologians, Catholic and Protestant, took the same ground;\nand then came that tremendous rejoinder which echoed from heart to heart\nthroughout the Northern States: \"The Bible sanctions slavery? So much\nthe worse for the Bible.\" Then was fulfilled that old saying of Bishop\nUlrich of Augsburg: \"Press not the breasts of Holy Writ too hard, lest\nthey yield blood rather than milk.\"(493)\n\n\n     (493) There is a curious reference to Bishop Hopkins's ideas on slavery\nin Archbishop Tait's Life and Letters. For a succinct statement of the\nbiblical proslavery argument referred to, see Rhodes, as above, vol. i,\npp. 370 et seq.\n\n\nYet throughout Christendom a change in the mode of interpreting\nScripture, though absolutely necessary if its proper authority was to\nbe maintained, still seemed almost hopeless. Even after the foremost\nscholars had taken ground in favour of it, and the most conservative\nof those whose opinions were entitled to weight had made concessions\nshowing the old ground to be untenable, there was fanatical opposition\nto any change. The Syllabus of Errors put forth by Pius IX in 1864, as\nwell as certain other documents issued from the Vatican, had increased\nthe difficulties of this needed transition; and, while the more\nable-minded Roman Catholic scholars skilfully explained away the\nobstacles thus created, others published works insisting upon the most\nextreme views as to the verbal inspiration of the sacred books. In\nthe Church of England various influential men took the same view. Dr.\nBaylee, Principal of St. Aidan's College, declared that in Scripture\n\"every scientific statement is infallibly accurate; all its histories\nand narrations of every kind are without any inaccuracy. Its words\nand phrases have a grammatical and philological accuracy, such as is\npossessed by no human composition.\" In 1861 Dean Burgon preached in\nChrist Church Cathedral, Oxford, as follows: \"No, sirs, the Bible is the\nvery utterance of the Eternal: as much God's own word as if high heaven\nwere open and we heard God speaking to us with human voice. Every\nbook is inspired alike, and is inspired entirely. Inspiration is not a\ndifference of degree, but of kind. The Bible is filled to overflowing\nwith the Holy Spirit of God; the books of it and the words of it and the\nvery letters of it.\"\n\nIn 1865 Canon MacNeile declared in Exeter Hall that \"we must either\nreceive the verbal inspiration of the Old Testament or deny the\nveracity, the insight, the integrity of our Lord Jesus Christ as a\nteacher of divine truth.\"\n\nAs late as 1889 one of the two most eloquent pulpit orators in the\nChurch of England, Canon Liddon, preaching at St. Paul's Cathedral, used\nin his fervour the same dangerous argument: that the authority of Christ\nhimself, and therefore of Christianity, must rest on the old view of\nthe Old Testament; that, since the founder of Christianity, in divinely\nrecorded utterances, alluded to the transformation of Lot's wife into a\npillar of salt, to Noah's ark and the Flood, and to the sojourn of\nJonah in the whale, the biblical account of these must be accepted as\nhistorical, or that Christianity must be given up altogether.\n\nIn the light of what was rapidly becoming known regarding the Chaldean\nand other sources of the accounts given in Genesis, no argument could be\nmore fraught with peril to the interest which the gifted preacher sought\nto serve.\n\nIn France and Germany many similar utterances in opposition to the\nnewer biblical studies were heard; and from America, especially from the\ncollege at Princeton, came resounding echoes. As an example of many\nmay be quoted the statement by the eminent Dr. Hodge that the books\nof Scripture \"are, one and all, in thought and verbal expression, in\nsubstance, and in form, wholly the work of God, conveying with absolute\naccuracy and divine authority all that God meant to convey without human\nadditions and admixtures\"; and that \"infallibility and authority attach\nas much to the verbal expression in which the revelation is made as to\nthe matter of the revelation itself.\"\n\nBut the newer thought moved steadily on. As already in Protestant\nEurope, so now in the Protestant churches of America, it took strong\nhold on the foremost minds in many of the churches known as orthodox:\nToy, Briggs, Francis Brown, Evans, Preserved Smith, Moore, Haupt,\nHarper, Peters, and Bacon developed it, and, though most of them were\nopposed bitterly by synods, councils, and other authorities of\ntheir respective churches, they were manfully supported by the more\nintellectual clergy and laity. The greater universities of the country\nranged themselves on the side of these men; persecution but intrenched\nthem more firmly in the hearts of all intelligent well-wishers of\nChristianity. The triumphs won by their opponents in assemblies, synods,\nconventions, and conferences were really victories for the nominally\ndefeated, since they revealed to the world the fact that in each of\nthese bodies the strong and fruitful thought of the Church, the thought\nwhich alone can have any hold on the future, was with the new race of\nthinkers; no theological triumphs more surely fatal to the victors have\nbeen won since the Vatican defeated Copernicus and Galileo.\n\nAnd here reference must be made to a series of events which, in the\nsecond half of the nineteenth century, have contributed most powerful\naid to the new school of biblical research.\n\n\n\n\n\nV. VICTORY OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND LITERARY METHODS.\n\n\nWhile this struggle for the new truth was going on in various fields,\naid appeared from a quarter whence it was least expected.\n\nThe great discoveries by Botta and Layard in Assyria were supplemented\nby the researches of Rawlinson, George Smith, Oppert, Sayce, Sarzec,\nPinches, and others, and thus it was revealed more clearly than ever\nbefore that as far back as the time assigned in Genesis to the creation\na great civilization was flourishing in Mesopotamia; that long ages,\nprobably two thousand years, before the scriptural date assigned to the\nmigration of Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees, this Chaldean civilization\nhad bloomed forth in art, science, and literature; that the ancient\ninscriptions recovered from the sites of this and kindred civilizations\npresented the Hebrew sacred myths and legends in earlier forms--forms\nlong antedating those given in the Hebrew Scriptures; and that the\naccounts of the Creation, the Tree of Life in Eden, the institution and\neven the name of the Sabbath, the Deluge, the Tower of Babel, and much\nelse in the Pentateuch, were simply an evolution out of earlier Chaldean\nmyths and legends. So perfect was the proof of this that the most\neminent scholars in the foremost seats of Christian learning were\nobliged to acknowledge it.(494)\n\n\n     (494) As to the revelations of the vast antiquity of Chaldean\ncivilization, and especially regarding the Nabonidos inscription, see\nRecords of the Past, vol. i, new series, first article, and especially\npp. 5, 6, where a translation of that inscription is given; also Hommel,\nGeschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens, introduction, in which, on page\n12, an engraving of the Sargon cylinder is given; also, on the general\nsubject, especially pp. 116 et seq., 309 et seq.; also Meyer,\nGeschichte des Alterthums, pp. 161-163; also Maspero and Sayce, Dawn of\nCivilization, p. 555 and note.\n\nFor the earlier Chaldean forms of the Hebrew Creation accounts, Tree\nof Life in Eden, Hebrew Sabbath, both the institution and the name, and\nvarious other points of similar interest, see George Smith, Chaldean\nAccount of Genesis, throughout the work, especially p. 308 and chaps.\nxvi, xvii; also Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier; also Schrader,\nThe Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament; also Lenormant,\nOrigines de l'Histoire; also Sayce, The Assyrian Story of Creation, in\nRecords of the Past, new series, vol. i. For a general statement as to\nearlier sources of much in the Hebrew sacred origins, see Huxley, Essays\non Controverted Questions, English edition, p. 525.\n\n\nThe more general conclusions which were thus given to biblical criticism\nwere all the more impressive from the fact that they had been revealed\nby various groups of earnest Christian scholars working on different\nlines, by different methods, and in various parts of the world. Very\nhonourable was the full and frank testimony to these results given\nin 1885 by the Rev. Francis Brown, a professor in the Presbyterian\nTheological Seminary at New York. In his admirable though brief book on\nAssyriology, starting with the declaration that \"it is a great pity to\nbe afraid of facts,\" he showed how Assyrian research testifies in many\nways to the historical value of the Bible record; but at the same time\nhe freely allowed to Chaldean history an antiquity fatal to the sacred\nchronology of the Hebrews. He also cast aside a mass of doubtful\napologetics, and dealt frankly with the fact that very many of the early\nnarratives in Genesis belong to the common stock of ancient tradition,\nand, mentioning as an example the cuneiform inscriptions which record\na story of the Accadian king Sargon--how \"he was born in retirement,\nplaced by his mother in a basket of rushes, launched on a river, rescued\nand brought up by a stranger, after which he became king\"--he did not\nhesitate to remind his readers that Sargon lived a thousand years and\nmore before Moses; that this story was told of him several hundred years\nbefore Moses was born; and that it was told of various other important\npersonages of antiquity. The professor dealt just as honestly with the\ninscriptions which show sundry statements in the book of Daniel to be\nunhistorical; candidly making admissions which but a short time before\nwould have filled orthodoxy with horror.\n\nA few years later came another testimony even more striking. Early in\nthe last decade of the nineteenth century it was noised abroad that\nthe Rev. Professor Sayce, of Oxford, the most eminent Assyriologist and\nEgyptologist of Great Britain, was about to publish a work in which what\nis known as the \"higher criticism\" was to be vigorously and probably\ndestructively dealt with in the light afforded by recent research among\nthe monuments of Assyria and Egypt. The book was looked for with eager\nexpectation by the supporters of the traditional view of Scripture; but,\nwhen it appeared, the exultation of the traditionalists was speedily\nchanged to dismay. For Prof. Sayce, while showing some severity toward\nsundry minor assumptions and assertions of biblical critics, confirmed\nall their more important conclusions which properly fell within his\nprovince. While his readers soon realized that these assumptions and\nassertions of overzealous critics no more disproved the main results of\nbiblical criticism than the wild guesses of Kepler disproved the theory\nof Copernicus, or the discoveries of Galileo, or even the great laws\nwhich bear Kepler's own name, they found new mines sprung under some\nof the most lofty fortresses of the old dogmatic theology. A few of the\nstatements of this champion of orthodoxy may be noted. He allowed that\nthe week of seven days and the Sabbath rest are of Babylonian origin;\nindeed, that the very word \"Sabbath\" is Babylonian; that there are two\nnarratives of Creation on the Babylonian tablets, wonderfully like\nthe two leading Hebrew narratives in Genesis, and that the latter were\nundoubtedly drawn from the former; that the \"garden of Eden\" and its\nmystical tree were known to the inhabitants of Chaldea in pre-Semitic\ndays; that the beliefs that woman was created out of man, and that\nman by sin fell from a state of innocence, are drawn from very ancient\nChaldean-Babylonian texts; that Assyriology confirms the belief that the\nbook Genesis is a compilation; that portions of it are by no means so\nold as the time of Moses; that the expression in our sacred book,\n\"The Lord smelled a sweet savour\" at the sacrifice made by Noah, is\n\"identical with that of the Babylonian poet\"; that \"it is impossible to\nbelieve that the language of the latter was not known to the biblical\nwriter\" and that the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife was drawn in\npart from the old Egyptian tale of The Two Brothers. Finally, after a\nmultitude of other concessions, Prof. Sayce allowed that the book of\nJonah, so far from being the work of the prophet himself, can not have\nbeen written until the Assyrian Empire was a thing of the past; that the\nbook of Daniel contains serious mistakes; that the so-called historical\nchapters of that book so conflict with the monuments that the author\ncan not have been a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus; that\n\"the story of Belshazzar's fall is not historical\"; that the Belshazzar\nreferred to in it as king, and as the son of Nehuchadnezzar, was not the\nson of Nebuchadnezzar, and was never king; that \"King Darius the Mede,\"\nwho plays so great a part in the story, never existed; that the book\nassociates persons and events really many years apart, and that it must\nhave been written at a period far later than the time assigned in it for\nits own origin.\n\nAs to the book of Ezra, he tells us that we are confronted by a\nchronological inconsistency which no amount of ingenuity can explain\naway. He also acknowledges that the book of Esther \"contains many\nexaggerations and improbabilities, and is simply founded upon one of\nthose same historical tales of which the Persian chronicles seem to have\nbeen full.\" Great was the dissatisfaction of the traditionalists with\ntheir expected champion; well might they repeat the words of Balak to\nBalaam, \"I called thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast\naltogether blessed them.\"(495)\n\n\n     (495) For Prof. Brown's discussion, see his Assyriology, its Use and\nAbuse in Old Testament Study, New York, 1885, passim. For Prof. Sayce's\nviews, see The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, third edition,\nLondon, 1894, and especially his own curious anticipation, in the first\nlines of the preface, that he must fail to satisfy either side. For the\ndeclaration that the \"higher critic\" with all his offences is no worse\nthan the orthodox \"apologist,\" see p. 21. For the important admission\nthat the same criterion must be applied in researches into our own\nsacred books as into others, and even into the mediaeval chronicles, see\np. 26. For justification of critical scepticism regarding the history\ngiven in the book of Daniel, see pp. 27, 28, also chap. ix. For very\nfull and explicit statements, with proofs, that the \"Sabbath,\" both in\nname and nature, was derived by the Hebrews from the Chaldeans, see pp.\n74 et seq. For a very full and fair acknowledgment of the \"Babylonian\nelement in Genesis,\" see chap. iii, including the statement regarding\nthe statement in our sacred book, \"The Lord smelled a sweet savour,\" at\nthe sacrifice made by Noah, etc., on p. 119. For an excellent summary of\nthe work, see Dr. Driver's article in the Contemporary Review for March,\n1894. For a pungent but well-deserved rebuke of Prof. Sayce's recent\nattempts to propitiate pious subscribers to his archaeological fund, see\nProf. A. A. Bevan, in the Contemporary Review for December, 1895. For\nthe inscription on the Assyrian tablets relating in detail the exposure\nof King Sargon in a basket of rushes, his rescue and rule, see George\nSmith, Chaldean account of Genesis, Sayce's edition, London, 1880, pp.\n319, 320. For the frequent recurrence of the Sargon and Moses legend\nin ancient folklore, see Maspero and Sayce, Dawn of History, p. 598 and\nnote. For various other points of similar interest, see ibid., passim,\nespecially chaps. xvi and xvii; also Jensen, Die Kosmologie der\nBabylonier, and Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old\nTestament; also Lenormant, Origines de l'Histoire.\n\n\nNo less fruitful have been modern researches in Egypt. While, on one\nhand, they have revealed a very considerable number of geographical and\narchaeological facts proving the good faith of the narratives entering\ninto the books attributed to Moses, and have thus made our early sacred\nliterature all the more valuable, they have at the same time revealed\nthe limitations of the sacred authors and compilers. They have brought\nto light facts utterly disproving the sacred Hebrew date of creation and\nthe main framework of the early biblical chronology; they have shown\nthe suggestive correspondence between the ten antediluvian patriarchs\nin Genesis and the ten early dynasties of the Egyptian gods, and have\nplaced by the side of these the ten antediluvian kings of Chaldean\ntradition, the ten heroes of Armenia, the ten primeval kings of Persian\nsacred tradition, the ten \"fathers\" of Hindu sacred tradition, and\nmultitudes of other tens, throwing much light on the manner in which the\nsacred chronicles of ancient nations were generally developed.\n\nThese scholars have also found that the legends of the plagues of Egypt\nare in the main but natural exaggerations of what occurs every year; as,\nfor example, the changing of the water of the Nile into blood--evidently\nsuggested by the phenomena exhibited every summer, when, as various\neminent scholars, and, most recent of all, Maspero and Sayce, tell us,\n\"about the middle of July, in eight or ten days the river turns from\ngrayish blue to dark red, occasionally of so intense a colour as to look\nlike newly shed blood.\" These modern researches have also shown that\nsome of the most important features in the legends can not possibly\nbe reconciled with the records of the monuments; for example, that the\nPharaoh of the Exodus was certainly not overwhelmed in the Red Sea. As\nto the supernatural features of the Hebrew relations with Egypt, even\nthe most devoted apologists have become discreetly silent.\n\nEgyptologists have also translated for us the old Nile story of The Two\nBrothers, and have shown, as we have already seen, that one of the most\nstriking parts of our sacred Joseph legend was drawn from it; they have\nbeen obliged to admit that the story of the exposure of Moses in the\nbasket of rushes, his rescue, and his subsequent greatness, had been\npreviously told, long before Moses's time, not only of King Sargon,\nbut of various other great personages of the ancient world; they have\npublished plans of Egyptian temples and copies of the sculptures upon\ntheir walls, revealing the earlier origin of some of the most striking\nfeatures of the worship and ceremonial claimed to have been revealed\nespecially to the Hebrews; they have found in the Egyptian Book of the\nDead, and in various inscriptions of the Nile temples and tombs, earlier\nsources of much in the ethics so long claimed to have been revealed\nonly to the chosen people in the Book of the Covenant, in the ten\ncommandments, and elsewhere; they have given to the world copies of the\nEgyptian texts showing that the theology of the Nile was one of various\nfruitful sources of later ideas, statements, and practices regarding\nthe brazen serpent, the golden calf, trinities, miraculous conceptions,\nincarnations, resurrections, ascensions, and the like, and that Egyptian\nsacro-scientific ideas contributed to early Jewish and Christian sacred\nliterature statements, beliefs, and even phrases regarding the Creation,\nastronomy, geography, magic, medicine, diabolical influences, with a\nmultitude of other ideas, which we also find coming into early Judaism\nin greater or less degree from Chaldean and Persian sources.\n\nBut Egyptology, while thus aiding to sweep away the former conception of\nour sacred books, has aided biblical criticism in making them far more\nprecious; for it has shown them to be a part of that living growth of\nsacred literature whose roots are in all the great civilizations of\nthe past, and through whose trunk and branches are flowing the currents\nwhich are to infuse a higher religious and ethical life into the\ncivilizations of the future.(496)\n\n\n     (496) For general statements of agreements and disagreements between\nbiblical accounts and the revelations of the Egyptian monuments, see\nSayce, The Higher Criticism and the Monuments, especially chap. iv. For\ndiscrepancies between the Hebrew sacred accounts of Jewish relations\nwith Egypt and the revelations of modern Egyptian research, see Sharpe,\nHistory of Egypt; Flinders, Patrie, History of Egypt; and especially\nMaspero and Sayce, The Dawn of Civilization in Egypt and Chaldea,\nLondon, published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,\n1894. For the statement regarding the Nile, that about the middle of\nJuly \"in eight or ten days it turns from grayish blue to dark red,\noccasionally of so intense a colour as to look like newly shed blood,\"\nsee Maspero and Sayce, as above, p. 23. For the relation of the Joseph\nlegend to the Tale of Two Brothers, see Sharpe and others cited. For\nexamples of exposure of various great personages of antiquity in their\nchildhood, see G. Smith, Chaldean Accounts of Genesis, Sayce's edition,\np. 320. For the relation of the Book of the Dead, etc., to Hebrew\nethics, see a striking passage in Huxley's essay on The Evolution of\nTheology, also others cited in this chapter. As to trinities in Egypt\nand Chaldea, see Maspero and Sayce, especially pp. 104-106, 175, and\n659-663. For miraculous conception and birth of sons of Ra, ibid., pp.\n388, 389. For ascension of Ra into heaven, ibid., pp. 167, 168; for\nresurrections, see ibid., p. 695, also representations in Lepsius,\nPrisse d'Avennes, et al.; and for striking resemblance between Egyptian\nand Hebrew ritual and worship, and especially the ark, cherubim, ephod,\nUrim and Thummim, and wave offerings, see the same, passim. For a very\nfull exhibition of the whole subject, see Renan, Histoire du Peuple\nIsrael, vol. i, chap. xi. For Egyptian and Chaldean ideas in astronomy,\nout of which Hebrew ideas of \"the firmament,\" \"pillars of heaven,\" etc.,\nwere developed, see text and engravings in Maspero and Sayce, pp. 17\nand 543. For creation of man out of clay by a divine being in Egypt, see\nMaspero and Sayce, p. 154; for a similar idea in Chaldea, see ibid.,\np. 545; and for the creation of the universe by a word, ibid., pp. 146,\n147. For Egyptian and Chaldean ideas on magic and medicine, dread of\nevil spirits, etc., anticipating those of the Hebrew Scriptures, see\nMaspero and Sayce, as above, pp. 212-214, 217, 636; and for extension\nof these to neighboring nations, pp. 782, 783. For visions and use of\ndreams as oracles, ibid., p. 641 and elsewhere. See also, on these and\nother resemblances, Lenormant, Origines de l'Histoire, vol. i, passim;\nsee also George Smith and Sayce, as above, chaps. xvi and xvii, for\nresemblances especially striking, combining to show how simple was the\nevolution of many Hebrew sacred legends and ideas out of those earlier\ncivilizations. For an especially interesting presentation of the reasons\nwhy Egyptian ideas of immortality were not seized upon by the Jews, see\nthe Rev. Barham Zincke's work upon Egypt. For the sacrificial vessels,\ntemple rites, etc., see the bas-reliefs, figured by Lepsius, Prisse\nd'Avennes, Mariette, Maspero, et. al. For a striking summary by a\nbrilliant scholar and divine of the Anglican Church, see Mahaffy,\nProlegomena to Anc. Hist., cited in Sunderland, The Bible, New York,\n1893, p. 21, note.\n\n\nBut while archaeologists thus influenced enlightened opinion, another\nbody of scholars rendered services of a different sort--the centre of\ntheir enterprise being the University of Oxford. By their efforts was\npresented to the English-speaking world a series of translations of the\nsacred books of the East, which showed the relations of the more Eastern\nsacred literature to our own, and proved that in the religions of the\nworld the ideas which have come as the greatest blessings to mankind\nare not of sudden revelation or creation, but of slow evolution out of a\nremote past.\n\nThe facts thus shown did not at first elicit much gratitude from\nsupporters of traditional theology, and perhaps few things brought more\nobloquy on Renan, for a time, than his statement that \"the influence of\nPersia is the most powerful to which Israel was submitted.\" Whether this\nwas an overstatement or not, it was soon seen to contain much truth. Not\nonly was it made clear by study of the Zend Avesta that the Old and New\nTestament ideas regarding Satanic and demoniacal modes of action were\nlargely due to Persian sources, but it was also shown that the idea of\nimmortality was mainly developed in the Hebrew mind during the close\nrelations of the Jews with the Persians. Nor was this all. In the\nZend Avesta were found in earlier form sundry myths and legends\nwhich, judging from their frequent appearance in early religions, grow\nnaturally about the history of the adored teachers of our race. Typical\namong these was the Temptation of Zoroaster.\n\nIt is a fact very significant and full of promise that the first large,\nfrank, and explicit revelation regarding this whole subject in\nform available for the general thinking public was given to the\nEnglish-speaking world by an eminent Christian divine and scholar, the\nRev. Dr. Mills. Having already shown himself by his translations a most\ncompetent authority on the subject, he in 1894 called attention, in a\nreview widely read, to \"the now undoubted and long since suspected\nfact that it pleased the Divine Power to reveal some of the important\narticles of our Catholic creed first to the Zoroastrians, and through\ntheir literature to the Jews and ourselves.\" Among these beliefs Dr.\nMills traced out very conclusively many Jewish doctrines regarding\nthe attributes of God, and all, virtually, regarding the attributes of\nSatan.\n\nThere, too, he found accounts of the Miraculous Conception, Virgin\nBirth, and Temptation of Zoroaster, As to the last, Dr. Mills presented\na series of striking coincidences with our own later account. As to\nits main features, he showed that there had been developed among the\nPersians, many centuries before the Christian era, the legend of a vain\neffort of the arch-demon, one seat of whose power was the summit of\nMount Arezura, to tempt Zoroaster to worship him,--of an argument\nbetween tempter and tempted,--and of Zoroaster's refusal; and the doctor\ncontinued: \"No Persian subject in the streets of Jerusalem, soon after\nor long after the Return, could have failed to know this striking myth.\"\nDr. Mills then went on to show that, among the Jews, \"the doctrine of\nimmortality was scarcely mooted before the later Isaiah--that is,\nbefore the captivity--while the Zoroastrian scriptures are one mass of\nspiritualism, referring all results to the heavenly or to the infernal\nworlds.\" He concludes by saying that, as regards the Old and New\nTestaments, \"the humble, and to a certain extent prior, religion of the\nMazda worshippers was useful in giving point and beauty to many loose\nconceptions among the Jewish religious teachers, and in introducing many\nideas which were entirely new, while as to the doctrines of immortality\nand resurrection--the most important of all--it positively determined\nbelief.\"(498)\n\n\n     (498) For the passages in the Vendidad of special importance as regards\nthe Temptation myth, see Fargard, xix, 18, 20, 26, also 140, 147. Very\nstriking is the account of the Temptation in the Pelhavi version of the\nVendidad. The devil is represented as saying to Zaratusht (Zoroaster):\n\"I had the worship of thy ancestors; do thou also worship me.\" I am\nindebted to Prof. E. P. Evans, formerly of the University of Michigan,\nbut now of Munich, for a translation of the original text from Spiegel's\nedition. For a good account, see also Haug, Essays on the Sacred\nLanguage, etc., of the Parsees, edited by West, London, 1884, pp. 252\net seq.; see also Mills's and Darmesteter's work in Sacred Books of the\nEast. For Dr. Mills's article referred to, see his Zoroaster and the\nBible, in The Nineteenth Century, January, 1894. For the citation from\nRenan, see his Histoire du Peuple Israel, tome xiv, chap. iv; see also,\nfor Persian ideas of heaven, hell and resurrection, Haug, as above, p.\n310 et seq. For an interesting resume of Zoroastrianism, see Laing, A\nModern Zoroastrian, chap. xii, London, eighth edition, 1893. For\nthe Buddhist version of the judgment of Solomon, etc., see Fausboll,\nBuddhist Birth Stories, translated by Rhys Davids, London, 1880, vol. 1,\np. 14 and following. For very full statements regarding the influence of\nPersian ideas upon the Jews during the captivity, see Kahut, Ueber\ndie judische Angelologie und Daemonologie in ihren Abhangigkeit vom\nParsismus, Leipzig, 1866.\n\n\nEven more extensive were the revelations made by scientific criticism\napplied to the sacred literature of southern and eastern Asia. The\nresemblances of sundry fundamental narratives and ideas in our own\nsacred books with those of Buddhism were especially suggestive.\n\nHere, too, had been a long preparatory history. The discoveries in\nSanscrit philology made in the latter half of the eighteenth century and\nthe first half of the nineteenth, by Sir William Jones, Carey, Wilkins,\nFoster, Colebrooke, and others, had met at first with some opposition\nfrom theologians. The declaration by Dugald Stewart that the discovery\nof Sanscrit was fraudulent, and its vocabulary and grammar patched\ntogether out of Greek and Latin, showed the feeling of the older race of\nbiblical students.\n\nBut researches went on. Bopp, Burnouf, Lassen, Weber, Whitney, Max\nMuller, and others continued the work during the nineteenth century.\nMore and more evident became the sources from which many ideas and\nnarratives in our own sacred books had been developed. Studies in the\nsacred books of Brahmanism, and in the institutions of Buddhism, the\nmost widespread of all religions, its devotees outnumbering those of all\nbranches of the Christian Church together, proved especially fruitful in\nfacts relating to general sacred literature and early European religious\nideas.\n\nNoteworthy in the progress of this knowledge was the work of Fathers Huc\nand Gabet. In 1839 the former of these, a French Lazarist priest, set\nout on a mission to China. Having prepared himself at Macao by eighteen\nmonths of hard study, and having arrayed himself like a native, even to\nthe wearing of the queue and the staining of his skin, he visited Peking\nand penetrated Mongolia. Five years later, taking Gabet with him, both\ndisguised as Lamas, he began his long and toilsome journey to the chief\nseats of Buddhism in Thibet, and, after two years of fearful dangers\nand sufferings, accomplished it. Driven out finally by the Chinese,\nHuc returned to Europe in 1852, having made one of the most heroic,\nself-denying, and, as it turned out, one of the most valuable efforts\nin all the noble annals of Christian missions. His accounts of these\njournevs, written in a style simple, clear, and interesting, at once\nattracted attention throughout the world. But far more important than\nany services he had rendered to the Church he served was the influence\nof his book upon the general opinions of thinking men; for he completed\na series of revelations made by earlier, less gifted, and less\ndevoted travellers, and brought to the notice of the world the amazing\nsimilarity of the ideas, institutions, observances, ceremonies, and\nritual, and even the ecclesiastical costumes of the Buddhists to those\nof his own Church.\n\nBuddhism was thus shown with its hierarchy, in which the Grand Lama, an\ninfallible representative of the Most High, is surrounded by its\nminor Lamas, much like cardinals; with its bishops wearing mitres, its\ncelibate priests with shaven crown, cope, dalmatic, and censer; its\ncathedrals with clergy gathered in the choir; its vast monasteries\nfilled with monks and nuns vowed to poverty, chastity, and obedience;\nits church arrangements, with shrines of saints and angels; its use of\nimages, pictures, and illuminated missals; its service, with a striking\ngeneral resemblance to the Mass; antiphonal choirs; intoning of prayers;\nrecital of creeds; repetition of litanies; processions; mystic rites and\nincense; the offering and adoration of bread upon an altar lighted\nby candles; the drinking from a chalice by the priest; prayers and\nofferings for the dead; benediction with outstretched hands; fasts,\nconfessions, and doctrine of purgatory--all this and more was now\nclearly revealed. The good father was evidently staggered by these\namazing facts; but his robust faith soon gave him an explanation: he\nsuggested that Satan, in anticipation of Christianity, had revealed\nto Buddhism this divinely constituted order of things. This naive\nexplanation did not commend itself to his superiors in the Roman Church.\nIn the days of St. Augustine or of St. Thomas Aquinas it would doubtless\nhave been received much more kindly; but in the days of Cardinal\nAntonelli this was hardly to be expected: the Roman authorities, seeing\nthe danger of such plain revelations in the nineteenth century, even\nwhen coupled with such devout explanations, put the book under the ban,\nthough not before it had been spread throughout the world in various\ntranslations. Father Huc was sent on no more missions.\n\nYet there came even more significant discoveries, especially bearing\nupon the claims of that great branch of the Church which supposes itself\nto possess a divine safeguard against error in belief. For now was\nbrought to light by literary research the irrefragable evidence that the\ngreat Buddha--Sakya Muni himself--had been canonized and enrolled among\nthe Christian saints whose intercession may be invoked, and in whose\nhonour images, altars, and chapels may be erected; and this, not only\nby the usage of the medieval Church, Greek and Roman, but by the special\nand infallible sanction of a long series of popes, from the end of the\nsixteenth century to the end of the nineteenth--a sanction granted under\none of the most curious errors in human history. The story enables us to\nunderstand the way in which many of the beliefs of Christendom have been\ndeveloped, especially how they have been influenced from the seats\nof older religions; and it throws much light into the character and\nexercise of papal infallibility.\n\nEarly in the seventh century there was composed, as is now believed, at\nthe Convent of St. Saba near Jerusalem, a pious romance entitled\nBarlaam and Josaphat--the latter personage, the hero of the story, being\nrepresented as a Hindu prince converted to Christianity by the former.\n\nThis story, having been attributed to St. John of Damascus in the\nfollowing century became amazingly popular, and was soon accepted as\ntrue: it was translated from the Greek original not only into Latin,\nHebrew, Arabic, and Ethiopic, but into every important European\nlanguage, including even Polish, Bohemian, and Icelandic. Thence it came\ninto the pious historical encyclopaedia of Vincent of Beauvais, and,\nmost important of all, into the Lives of the Saints.\n\nHence the name of its pious hero found its way into the list of saints\nwhose intercession is to be prayed for, and it passed without challenge\nuntil about 1590, when, the general subject of canonization having been\nbrought up at Rome, Pope Sixtus V, by virtue of his infallibility and\nimmunity against error in everything relating to faith and morals,\nsanctioned a revised list of saints, authorizing and directing it to\nbe accepted by the Church; and among those on whom he thus forever\ninfallibly set the seal of Heaven was included \"The Holy Saint Josaphat\nof India, whose wonderful acts St. John of Damascus has related.\" The\n27th of November was appointed as the day set apart in honour of this\nsaint, and the decree, having been enforced by successive popes for over\ntwo hundred and fifty years, was again officially approved by Pius IX\nin 1873. This decree was duly accepted as infallible, and in one of the\nlargest cities of Italy may to-day be seen a Christian church dedicated\nto this saint. On its front are the initials of his Italianized name;\nover its main entrance is the inscription \"Divo Josafat\"; and within it\nis an altar dedicated to the saint--above this being a pedestal bearing\nhis name and supporting a large statue which represents him as a\nyouthful prince wearing a crown and contemplating a crucifix.\n\nMoreover, relics of this saint were found; bones alleged to be parts\nof his skeleton, having been presented by a Doge of Venice to a King of\nPortugal, are now treasured at Antwerp.\n\nBut even as early as the sixteenth century a pregnant fact regarding\nthis whole legend was noted: for the Portuguese historian Diego Conto\nshowed that it was identical with the legend of Buddha. Fortunately for\nthe historian, his faith was so robust that he saw in this resemblance\nonly a trick of Satan; the life of Buddha being, in his opinion, merely\na diabolic counterfeit of the life of Josaphat centuries before the\nlatter was lived or written--just as good Abbe Huc saw in the ceremonies\nof Buddhism a similar anticipatory counterfeit of Christian ritual.\n\nThere the whole matter virtually rested for about three hundred\nyears--various scholars calling attention to the legend as a curiosity,\nbut none really showing its true bearings--until, in 1859, Laboulaye in\nFrance, Liebrecht in Germany, and others following them, demonstrated\nthat this Christian work was drawn almost literally from an early\nbiography of Buddha, being conformed to it in the most minute details,\nnot only of events but of phraseology; the only important changes being\nthat, at the end of the various experiences showing the wretchedness of\nthe world, identical with those ascribed in the original to the young\nPrince Buddha, the hero, instead of becoming a hermit, becomes a\nChristian, and that for the appellation of Buddha--\"Bodisat\"--is\nsubstituted the more scriptural name Josaphat.\n\nThus it was that, by virtue of the infallibility vouchsafed to the\npapacy in matters of faith and morals, Buddha became a Christian saint.\n\nYet these were by no means the most pregnant revelations. As the\nBuddhist scriptures were more fully examined, there were disclosed\ninteresting anticipations of statements in later sacred books. The\nmiraculous conception of Buddha and his virgin birth, like that of\nHorus in Egypt and of Krishna in India; the previous annunciation to his\nmother Maja; his birth during a journey by her; the star appearing\nin the east, and the angels chanting in the heavens at his birth; his\ntemptation--all these and a multitude of other statements were full\nof suggestions to larger thought regarding the development of sacred\nliterature in general. Even the eminent Roman Catholic missionary Bishop\nBigandet was obliged to confess, in his scholarly life of Buddha, these\nstriking similarities between the Buddhist scriptures and those which\nit was his mission to expound, though by this honest statement his own\nfurther promotion was rendered impossible. Fausboll also found the story\nof the judgment of Solomon imbedded in Buddhist folklore; and Sir Edwin\nArnold, by his poem, The Light of Asia, spread far and wide a knowledge\nof the anticipation in Buddhism of some ideas which down to a recent\nperiod were considered distinctively Christian. Imperfect as\nthe revelations thus made of an evolution of religious beliefs,\ninstitutions, and literature still are, they have not been without an\nimportant bearing upon the newer conception of our own sacred books:\nmore and more manifest has become the interdependence of all human\ndevelopment; more and more clear the truth that Christianity, as a great\nfact in man's history, is not dependent for its life upon any parasitic\ngrowths of myth and legend, no matter how beautiful they may be.(498)\n\n\n     (498) For Huc and Gabet, see Souvenirs d'un Voyage dans la Tartarie, le\nThibet, et la Chine, English translation by Hazlitt, London, 1851; also\nsupplementary work by Huc. For Bishop Bigandet, see his Life of Buddha,\npassim. As for authority for the fact that his book was condemned\nat Rome and his own promotion prevented, the present writer has the\nbishop's own statement. For notices of similarities between Buddhist\nand Christian institutions, rituals, etc., see Rhys David's Buddhism,\nLondon, 1894, passim; also Lillie, Buddhism and Christianity, especially\nchaps. ii and xi. It is somewhat difficult to understand how a scholar\nso eminent as Mr. Rhys Davids should have allowed the Society for the\nPromotion of Christian Knowledge, which published his book, to eliminate\nall the interesting details regarding the birth of Buddha, and to give\nso fully everything that seemed to tell against the Roman Catholic\nChurch; cf. p. 27 with p. 246 et seq. For more thorough presentation of\nthe development of features in Buddhism and Brahmanism which anticipate\nthose of Christianity, see Schroeder, Indiens Literatur und Cultur,\nLeipsic, 1887, especially Vorlesung XXVIII and following. For full\ndetails of the canonization of Buddha under the name of St. Josaphat,\nsee Fausboll, Buddhist Birth Stories, translated by Rhys Davids, London,\n1880, pp. xxxvi and following; also Prof. Max Muller in the Contemporary\nReview for July, 1890; also the article Barlaam and Josaphat, in the\nninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. For the more recent\nand full accounts, correcting some minor details in the foregoing\nauthorities, see Kuhn, Barlaam und Joasaph, Munich, 1893, especially\npages 82, 83. For a very thorough discussion of the whole subject,\nsee Zotenberg, Notice sur le livre de Barlaam et Joasaph, Paris, 1886;\nespecially for arguments fixing date of the work, see parts i to\niii; also Gaston Paris in the Revue de Paris for June, 1895. For the\ntransliteration between the appellation of Buddha and the name of the\nsaint, see Fausboll and Sayce, as above, p. xxxvii, note; and for the\nmultitude of translations of the work ascribed to St. John of Damascus,\nsee Table III, on p. xcv. The reader who is curious to trace up a\nmultitude of the myths and legends of early Hebrew and Christian\nmythology to their more eastern and southern sources can do so in Bible\nMyths, New York, 1883. The present writer gladly avails himself of the\nopportunity to thank the learned Director of the National Library at\nPalermo, Monsignor Marzo, for his kindness in showing him the very\ninteresting church of San Giosafat in that city; and to the custodians\nof the church for their readiness to allow photographs of the saint to\nbe taken. The writer's visit was made in April, 1895, and copies of the\nphotographs may be seen in the library of Cornell University. As to\nthe more rare editions of Barlaam and Josaphat, a copy of the Icelandic\ntranslation is to be seen in the remarkable collection of Prof. Willard\nFiske, at Florence. As to the influence of these translations, it may\nbe noted that when young John Kuncewicz, afterward a Polish archbishop,\nbecame a monk, he took the name of the sainted Prince Josafat; and,\nhaving fallen a victim to one of the innumerable murderous affrays of\nthe seventeenth century between different sorts of fanatics--Greek,\nCatholic, and Protestant--in Poland, he also was finally canonized under\nthat name, evidently as a means of annoying the Russian Government. (See\nContieri, Vita di S. Giosafat, Arcivesco e Martira Rutena, Roma, 1867.)\n\n\nNo less important was the closer research into the New Testament during\nthe latter part of the nineteenth century. To go into the subject in\ndetail would be beyond the scope of this work, but a few of the main\ntruths which it brought before the world may be here summarized.(499)\n\n\n     (499) For a brief but thorough statement of the work of Strauss,\nBaur, and the earlier cruder efforts in New Testament exegesis, see\nPfleiderer, as already cited, book ii, chap. i; and for the later work\non Supernatural Religion and Lightfoot's answer, ibid., book iv. chap.\nii.\n\n\nBy the new race of Christian scholars it has been clearly shown that the\nfirst three Gospels, which, down to the close of the last century, were\nso constantly declared to be three independent testimonies agreeing as\nto the events recorded, are neither independent of each other nor\nin that sort of agreement which was formerly asserted. All biblical\nscholars of any standing, even the most conservative, have come to admit\nthat all three took their rise in the same original sources, growing by\nthe accretions sure to come as time went on--accretions sometimes useful\nand often beautiful, but in no inconsiderable degree ideas and even\nnarratives inherited from older religions: it is also fully acknowledged\nthat to this growth process are due certain contradictions which can not\notherwise be explained. As to the fourth Gospel, exquisitely beautiful\nas large portions of it are, there has been growing steadily and\nirresistibly the conviction, even among the most devout scholars, that\nit has no right to the name, and does not really give the ideas of St.\nJohn, but that it represents a mixture of Greek philosophy with Jewish\ntheology, and that its final form, which one of the most eminent among\nrecent Christian scholars has characterized as \"an unhistorical product\nof abstract reflection,\" is mainly due to some gifted representative or\nrepresentatives of the Alexandrian school. Bitter as the resistance\nto this view has been, it has during the last years of the nineteenth\ncentury won its way more and more to acknowledgment. A careful\nexamination made in 1893 by a competent Christian scholar showed facts\nwhich are best given in his own words, as follows: \"In the period of\nthirty years ending in 1860, of the fifty great authorities in this\nline, FOUR TO ONE were in favour of the Johannine authorship. Of\nthose who in that period had advocated this traditional position, one\nquarter--and certainly the very greatest--finally changed their position\nto the side of a late date and non-Johannine authorship.\"\n\nOf those who have come into this field of scholarship since about 1860,\nsome forty men of the first class, two thirds reject the traditional\ntheory wholly or very largely. Of those who have contributed important\narticles to the discussion from about 1880 to 1890, about TWO TO ONE\nreject the Johannine authorship of the Gospel in its present shape--that\nis to say, while forty years ago great scholars were FOUR TO ONE IN\nFAVOUR OF, they are now TWO TO ONE AGAINST, the claim that the apostle\nJohn wrote this Gospel as we have it. Again, one half of those on the\nconservative side to-day--scholars like Weiss, Beyschlag, Sanday, and\nReynolds--admit the existence of a dogmatic intent and an ideal element\nin this Gospel, so that we do not have Jesus's thought in his exact\nwords, but only in substance.\"(500)\n\n\n     (500) For the citations given regarding the development of thought in\nrelation to the fourth gospel, see Crooker, The New Bible and its Uses,\nBoston, 1893, pp. 29, 30. For the characterization of St. John's Gospel\nabove referred to, see Robertson Smith in the Encyc. Brit., 9th edit.,\nart. Bible, p. 642. For a very careful and candid summary of the reasons\nwhich are gradually leading the more eminent among the newer scholars to\ngive up the Johannine authorship ot the fourth Gospel, see Schurer, in\nthe Contemporary Review for September, 1891. American readers, regarding\nthis and the whole series of subjects of which this forms a part, may\nmost profitably study the Rev. Dr. Cone's Gospel Criticism and Historic\nChristianity, one of the most lucid and judicial of recent works in this\nfield.\n\n\nIn 1881 came an event of great importance as regards the development of\na more frank and open dealing with scriptural criticism. In that year\nappeared the Revised Version of the New Testament. It was exceedingly\ncautious and conservative; but it had the vast merit of being absolutely\nconscientious. One thing showed, in a striking way, ethical progress\nin theological methods. Although all but one of the English revisers\nrepresented Trinitarian bodies, they rejected the two great proof texts\nwhich had so long been accounted essential bulwarks of Trinitarian\ndoctrine. Thus disappeared at last from the Epistle of St. John the text\nof the Three Witnesses, which had for centuries held its place in spite\nof its absence from all the earlier important manuscripts, and of its\nrejection in later times by Erasmus, Luther, Isaac Newton, Porson, and\na long line of the greatest biblical scholars. And with this was thrown\nout the other like unto it in spurious origin and zealous intent, that\ninterpolation of the word \"God\" in the sixteenth verse of the third\nchapter of the First Epistle to Timothy, which had for ages served as a\nwarrant for condemning some of the noblest of Christians, even such men\nas Newton and Milton and Locke and Priestley and Channing.\n\nIndeed, so honest were the revisers that they substituted the correct\nreading of Luke ii, 33, in place of the time-honoured corruption in the\nKing James version which had been thought necessary to safeguard the\ndogma of the virgin birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus came the true\nreading, \"His FATHER and his mother\" instead of the old piously\nfraudulent words \"JOSEPH and his mother.\"\n\nAn even more important service to the new and better growth of\nChristianity was the virtual setting aside of the last twelve verses of\nthe Gospel according to St. Mark; for among these stood that sentence\nwhich has cost the world more innocent blood than any other--the words\n\"He that believeth not shall be damned.\" From this source had logically\ngrown the idea that the intellectual rejection of this or that dogma\nwhich dominant theology had happened at any given time to pronounce\nessential, since such rejection must bring punishment infinite in agony\nand duration, is a crime to be prevented at any cost of finite cruelty.\nStill another service rendered to humanity by the revisers was in\nsubstituting a new and correct rendering for the old reading of the\nfamous text regarding the inspiration of Scripture, which had for ages\ndone so much to make our sacred books a fetich. By this more correct\nreading the revisers gave a new charter to liberty in biblical\nresearch.(501)\n\n\n     (501) The texts referred to as most beneficially changed by the revisers\nare I John v, 7 and I Timothy iii, 16. Mention may also be made of\nthe fact that the American revision gave up the Trinitarian version of\nRomans ix, 5, and that even their more conservative British brethren,\nwhile leaving it in the text, discredited it in the margin.\n\nThough revisers thought it better not to suppress altogether the last\ntwelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel, they softened the word \"damned\"\nto \"condemned,\" and separated them from the main Gospel, adding a\nnote stating that \"the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other\nauthorities, omit from verse nine to the end\"; and that \"some other\nauthorities have a different ending to this Gospel.\"\n\nThe resistance of staunch high churchmen of the older type even to so\nmild a reform as the first change above noted may be exemplified by\na story told of Philpotts, Bishop of Exeter, about the middle of the\nnineteenth century. A kindly clergyman reading an invitation to the holy\ncommunion, and thinking that so an affectionate a call was disfigured by\nthe harsh phrase \"eateth and drinketh to his own damnation,\" ventured\ntimidly to substitute the word \"condemnation.\" Thereupon the bishop, who\nwas kneeling with the rest of the congregation, threw up his head\nand roared \"DAMNATION!\" The story is given in T. A. Trollope's What I\nRemember, vol. i, p. 444. American churchmen may well rejoice that the\nfathers of the American branch of the Anglican Church were wise enough\nand Christian enough to omit from their Prayer Book this damnatory\nclause, as well as the Commination Service and the Athanasian Creed.\n\n\nMost valuable, too, have been studies during the latter part of the\nnineteenth century upon the formation of the canon of Scripture. The\nresult of these has been to substitute something far better for that\nconception of our biblical literature, as forming one book handed out\nof the clouds by the Almighty, which had been so long practically\nthe accepted view among probably the majority of Christians. Reverent\nscholars have demonstrated our sacred literature to be a growth in\nobedience to simple laws natural and historical; they have shown how\nsome books of the Old Testament were accepted as sacred, centuries\nbefore our era, and how others gradually gained sanctity, in some cases\nonly fully acquiring it long after the establishment of the Christian\nChurch. The same slow growth has also been shown in the New Testament\ncanon. It has been demonstrated that the selection of the books\ncomposing it, and their separation from the vast mass of spurious\ngospels, epistles, and apocalyptic literature was a gradual process, and,\nindeed, that the rejection of some books and the acceptance of others\nwas accidental, if anything is accidental.\n\nSo, too, scientific biblical research has, as we have seen, been obliged\nto admit the existence of much mythical and legendary matter, as a\nsetting for the great truths not only of the Old Testament but of the\nNew. It has also shown, by the comparative study of literatures, the\nprocess by which some books were compiled and recompiled, adorned\nwith beautiful utterances, strengthened or weakened by alterations and\ninterpolations expressing the views of the possessors or transcribers,\nand attributed to personages who could not possibly have written them.\nThe presentation of these things has greatly weakened that sway of mere\ndogma which has so obscured the simple teachings of Christ himself; for\nit has shown that the more we know of our sacred books, the less certain\nwe become as to the authenticity of \"proof texts,\" and it has disengaged\nmore and more, as the only valuable residuum, like the mass of gold\nat the bottom of the crucible, the personality, spirit, teaching, and\nideals of the blessed Founder of Christianity. More and more, too, the\nnew scholarship has developed the conception of the New Testament as,\nlike the Old, the growth of literature in obedience to law--a conception\nwhich in al probability will give it its strongest hold on the coming\ncenturies. In making this revelation Christian scholarship has by no\nmeans done work mainly destructive. It has, indeed, swept away a mass\nof noxious growths, but it has at the same time cleared the ground for\na better growth of Christianity--a growth through which already pulsates\nthe current of a nobler life. It has forever destroyed the contention of\nscholars like those of the eighteenth century who saw, in the multitude\nof irreconcilable discrepancies between various biblical statements,\nmerely evidences of priestcraft and intentional fraud. The new\nscholarship has shown that even such absolute contradictions as those\nbetween the accounts of the early life of Jesus by Matthew and Luke, and\nbetween the date of the crucifixion and details of the resurrection\nin the first three Gospels and in the fourth, and other discrepancies\nhardly less serious, do not destroy the historical character of the\nnarrative. Even the hopelessly conflicting genealogies of the Saviour\nand the evidently mythical accretions about the simple facts of his\nbirth and life are thus full of interest when taken as a natural\nliterary development in obedience to the deepest religious feeling.(502)\n\n\n     (502) Among the newer English works of the canon of Scripture,\nespecially as regards the Old Testament, see Ryle in work cited. As to\nthe evidences of frequent mutilations of the New Testament text, as well\nas of frequent charge of changing texts made against each other by early\nChristian writers, see Reuss, History of the New Testament, vol. ii, S\n362. For a reverent and honest treatment of some of the discrepancies\nand contradictions which are absolutely irreconcilable, see Crooker, as\nabove, appendix; also Cone, Gospel Criticism and Historic Christianity,\nespecially chap. ii; also Matthew Arnold, Literature and Dogma, and God\nand the Bible, especially chap. vi; and for a brief but full showing of\nthem in a judicial and kindly spirit, see Laing, Problems of the Future,\nchap. ix, on The Historical Element in the Gospels.\n\n\nAmong those who have wrought most effectively to bring the leaders\nof thought in the English-speaking nations to this higher conception,\nMatthew Arnold should not be forgotten. By poetic insight, broad\nscholarship, pungent statement, pithy argument, and an exquisitely lucid\nstyle, he aided effectually during the latter half of the nineteenth\ncentury in bringing the work of specialists to bear upon the development\nof a broader and deeper view. In the light of his genius a conception\nof our sacred books at the same time more literary as well as more\nscientific has grown widely and vigorously, while the older view which\nmade of them a fetich and a support for unchristian dogmas has been more\nand more thrown into the background. The contributions to these results\nby the most eminent professors at the great Christian universities of\nthe English-speaking world, Oxford and Cambridge taking the lead, are\nmost hopeful signs of a new epoch.\n\nVery significant also is a change in the style of argument against the\nscientific view. Leading supporters of the older opinions see more and\nmore clearly the worthlessness of rhetoric against ascertained fact:\nmere dogged resistance to cogent argument evidently avails less and\nless; and the readiness of the more prominent representatives of the\nolder thought to consider opposing arguments, and to acknowledge any\nforce they may have, is certainly of good omen. The concessions made\nin Lux Mundi regarding scriptural myths and legends have been already\nmentioned.\n\nSignificant also has been the increasing reprobation in the Church\nitself of the profound though doubtless unwitting immoralities of\nRECONCILERS. The castigation which followed the exploits of the\ngreatest of these in our own time--Mr. Gladstone, at the hands of Prof.\nHuxley--did much to complete a work in which such eminent churchmen as\nStanley, Farrar, Sanday, Cheyne, Driver, and Sayce had rendered good\nservice.\n\nTypical among these evidences of a better spirit in controversy has been\nthe treatment of the question regarding mistaken quotations from the\nOld Testament in the New, and especially regarding quotations by Christ\nhimself. For a time this was apparently the most difficult of all\nmatters dividing the two forces; but though here and there appear\nchampions of tradition, like the Bishop of Gloucester, effectual\nresistance to the new view has virtually ceased; in one way or another\nthe most conservative authorities have accepted the undoubted truth\nrevealed by a simple scientific method. Their arguments have indeed\nbeen varied. While some have fallen back upon Le Clerc's contention that\n\"Christ did not come to teach criticism to the Jews,\" and others upon\nPaley's argument that the Master shaped his statements in accordance\nwith the ideas of his time, others have taken refuge in scholastic\nstatements--among them that of Irenaeus regarding \"a quiescence of the\ndivine word,\" or the somewhat startling explanation by sundry recent\ntheologians that \"our Lord emptied himself of his Godhead.\"(504)\n\n\n     (504) For Matthew Arnold, see, besides his Literature and Dogma, his St.\nPaul and Protestantism. As to the quotations in the New Testament from\nthe Old, see Toy, Quotations in the New Testament, 1889, p. 72; also\nKuenen, The Prophets and Prophecy in Israel. For Le Clerc's method of\ndealing with the argument regarding quotations from the Old Testament in\nthe New, see earlier parts of the present chapter. For Paley's mode,\nsee his Evidences, part iii, chapter iii. For the more scholastic\nexpressions from Irenaeus and others, see Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891,\nespecially note on p. 267. For a striking passage on the general subject\nsee B. W. Bacon, Genesis of Genesis, p. 33, ending with the words, \"We\nmust decline to stake the authority of Jesus Christ on a question of\nliterary criticism.\"\n\n\nNor should there be omitted a tribute to the increasing courtesy shown\nin late years by leading supporters of the older view. During the last\ntwo decades of the present century there has been a most happy departure\nfrom the older method of resistance, first by plausibilities, next by\nepithets, and finally by persecution. To the bitterness of the attacks\nupon Darwin, the Essayists and Reviewers, and Bishop Colenso, have\nsucceeded, among really eminent leaders, a far better method and\ntone. While Matthew Arnold no doubt did much in commending \"sweet\nreasonableness\" to theological controversialists, Mr. Gladstone, by\nhis perfect courtesy to his opponents, even when smarting under their\nheaviest blows, has set a most valuable example. Nor should the spirit\nshown by Bishop Ellicott, leading a forlorn hope for the traditional\nview, pass without a tribute of respect. Truly pathetic is it to\nsee this venerable and learned prelate, one of the most eminent\nrepresentatives of the older biblical research, even when giving solemn\nwarnings against the newer criticisms, and under all the temptations\nof ex cathedra utterance, remaining mild and gentle and just in the\ntreatment of adversaries whose ideas he evidently abhors. Happily, he\nis comforted by the faith that Christianity will survive; and this faith\nhis opponents fully share.(505)\n\n\n     (505) As an example of courtesy between theologic opponents may be cited\nthe controversy between Mr. Gladstone and Prof. Huxley, Principal Gore's\nBampton Lectures for 1891, and Bishop Ellicott's Charges, published in\n1893.\n\nTo the fact that the suppression of personal convictions among \"the\nenlightened\" did not cease with the Medicean popes there are many\ntestimonies. One especially curious was mentioned to the present writer\nby a most honoured diplomatist and scholar at Rome. While this gentleman\nwas looking over the books of an eminent cardinal, recently deceased,\nhe noticed a series of octavos bearing on their backs the title \"Acta\nApostolorum.\" Surprised at such an extension of the Acts of Apostles, he\nopened a volume and found the series to be the works of Voltaire. As to\na similar condition of things in the Church of England may be cited\nthe following from Froude's Erasmus: \"I knew various persons of high\nreputation a few years ago who thought at the bottom very much as Bishop\nColenso thought, who nevertheless turned and rent him to clear their own\nreputations--which they did not succeed in doing.\" See work cited, close\nof Lecture XI.\n\n\n\n\nVI. RECONSTRUCTIVE FORCE OF SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM.\n\n\nFor all this dissolving away of traditional opinions regarding our\nsacred literature, there has been a cause far more general and powerful\nthan any which has been given, for it is a cause surrounding and\npermeating all. This is simply the atmosphere of thought engendered by\nthe development of all sciences during the last three centuries.\n\nVast masses of myth, legend, marvel, and dogmatic assertion, coming into\nthis atmosphere, have been dissolved and are now dissolving quietly away\nlike icebergs drifted into the Gulf Stream. In earlier days, when some\ncritic in advance of his time insisted that Moses could not have\nwritten an account embracing the circumstances of his own death, it was\nsufficient to answer that Moses was a prophet; if attention was called\nto the fact that the great early prophets, by all which they did and\ndid not do, showed that there could not have existed in their time\nany \"Levitical code,\" a sufficient answer was \"mystery\"; and if the\ndiscrepancy was noted between the two accounts of creation in Genesis,\nor between the genealogies or the dates of the crucifixion in the\nGospels, the cogent reply was \"infidelity.\" But the thinking world has\nat last been borne by the general development of a scientific atmosphere\nbeyond that kind of refutation.\n\nIf, in the atmosphere generated by the earlier developed sciences, the\nolder growths of biblical interpretation have drooped and withered and\nare evidently perishing, new and better growths have arisen with roots\nrunning down into the newer sciences. Comparative Anthropology in\ngeneral, by showing that various early stages of belief and observance,\nonce supposed to be derived from direct revelation from heaven to the\nHebrews, are still found as arrested developments among various savage\nand barbarous tribes; Comparative Mythology and Folklore, by showing\nthat ideas and beliefs regarding the Supreme Power in the universe are\nprogressive, and not less in Judea than in other parts of the world;\nComparative Religion and Literature, by searching out and laying side by\nside those main facts in the upward struggle of humanity which show that\nthe Israelites, like other gifted peoples, rose gradually, through ghost\nworship, fetichism, and polytheism, to higher theological levels; and\nthat, as they thus rose, their conceptions and statements regarding the\nGod they worshipped became nobler and better--all these sciences are\ngiving a new solution to those problems which dogmatic theology has so\nlong laboured in vain to solve. While researches in these sciences\nhave established the fact that accounts formerly supposed to be special\nrevelations to Jews and Christians are but repetitions of widespread\nlegends dating from far earlier civilizations, and that beliefs formerly\nthought fundamental to Judaism and Christianity are simply based on\nancient myths, they have also begun to impress upon the intellect and\nconscience of the thinking world the fact that the religious and moral\ntruths thus disengaged from the old masses of myth and legend are\nall the more venerable and authoritative, and that all individual or\nnational life of any value must be vitalized by them.(506)\n\n\n     (506) For plaintive lamentations over the influence of this atmosphere\nof scientific thought upon the most eminent contemporary Christian\nscholars, see the Christus Comprobator, by the Bishop of Gloucester and\nBristol, London, 1893, and the article in the Contemporary Review for\nMay, 1892, by the Bishop of Colchester, passim. For some less\nknown examples of sacred myths and legends inherited from ancient\ncivilizations, see Lenormant, Les Origines de l'Histoire, passim, but\nespecially chaps. ii, iv, v, vi; see also Goldziher.\n\n\nIf, then, modern science in general has acted powerfully to dissolve\naway the theories and dogmas of the older theologic interpretation, it\nhas also been active in a reconstruction and recrystallization of\ntruth; and very powerful in this reconstruction have been the evolution\ndoctrines which have grown out of the thought and work of men like\nDarwin and Spencer.\n\nIn the light thus obtained the sacred text has been transformed: out\nof the old chaos has come order; out of the old welter of hopelessly\nconflicting statements in religion and morals has come, in obedience\nto this new conception of development, the idea of a sacred literature\nwhich mirrors the most striking evolution of morals and religion in the\nhistory of our race. Of all the sacred writings of the world, it shows\nus our own as the most beautiful and the most precious; exhibiting to us\nthe most complete religious development to which humanity has attained,\nand holding before us the loftiest ideals which our race has known.\nThus it is that, with the keys furnished by this new race of biblical\nscholars, the way has been opened to treasures of thought which have\nbeen inaccessible to theologians for two thousand years.\n\nAs to the Divine Power in the universe: these interpreters have shown\nhow, beginning with the tribal god of the Hebrews--one among many\njealous, fitful, unseen, local sovereigns of Asia Minor--the higher\nraces have been borne on to the idea of the just Ruler of the whole\nearth, as revealed by the later and greater prophets of Israel, and\nfinally to the belief in the Universal Father, as best revealed in\nthe New Testament. As to man: beginning with men after Jehovah's own\nheart--cruel, treacherous, revengeful--we are borne on to an ideal of\nmen who do right for right's sake; who search and speak the truth for\ntruth's sake; who love others as themselves. As to the world at large:\nthe races dominant in religion and morals have been lifted from the idea\nof a \"chosen people\" stimulated and abetted by their tribal god in every\nsort of cruelty and injustice, to the conception of a vast community in\nwhich the fatherhood of God overarches all, and the brotherhood of man\npermeates all.\n\nThus, at last, out of the old conception of our Bible as a collection\nof oracles--a mass of entangling utterances, fruitful in wrangling\ninterpretations, which have given to the world long and weary ages of\n\"hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness\"; of fetichism, subtlety,\nand pomp; of tyranny bloodshed, and solemnly constituted imposture; of\neverything which the Lord Jesus Christ most abhorred--has been gradually\ndeveloped through the centuries, by the labours, sacrifices, and even\nthe martyrdom of a long succession of men of God, the conception of it\nas a sacred literature--a growth only possible under that divine light\nwhich the various orbs of science have done so much to bring into the\nmind and heart and soul of man--a revelation, not of the Fall of Man,\nbut of the Ascent of Man--an exposition, not of temporary dogmas and\nobservances, but of the Eternal Law of Righteousness--the one upward\npath for individuals and for nations. No longer an oracle, good for\nthe \"lower orders\" to accept, but to be quietly sneered at by \"the\nenlightened\"--no longer a fetich, whose defenders must be persecutors,\nor reconcilers, or \"apologists\"; but a most fruitful fact, which\nreligion and science may accept as a source of strength to both.","title":"History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":324962}