authorities
in church and state.

And yet, as we now look back, it is easy to see that even in that hour
of its triumph it was doomed.

The reason why the Church has so fully accepted the conclusions of
science which have destroyed the sacred theory is instructive. The
study of languages has been, since the Revival of Learning and the
Reformation, a favourite study with the whole Western Church, Catholic
and Protestant. The importance of understanding the ancient tongues in
which our sacred books are preserved first stimulated the study, and
Church missionary efforts have contributed nobly to supply the material
for extending it, and for the application of that comparative method
which, in philology as in other sciences, has been so fruitful. Hence it
is that so many leading theologians have come to know at first hand
the truths given by this science, and to recognise its fundamental
principles. What the conclusions which they, as well as all other
scholars in this field, have been absolutely forced to accept, I shall
now endeavour to show.

The beginnings of a scientific theory seemed weak indeed, but they were
none the less effective. As far back as 1661, Hottinger, professor at
Heidelberg, came into the chorus of theologians like a great bell in
a chime; but like a bell whose opening tone is harmonious and whose
closing tone is discordant. For while, at the beginning, Hottinger cites
a formidable list of great scholars who had held the sacred theory of
the origin of language, he goes on to note a closer resemblance to the
Hebrew in some languages than in others, and explains this by declaring
that the confusion of tongues was of two sorts, total and partial: the
Arabic and Chaldaic he thinks underwent only a partial confusion; the
Egyptian, Persian, and all the European languages a total one. Here
comes in the discord; here gently sounds forth from the great chorus
a new note--that idea of grouping and classifying languages which at a
later day was to destroy utterly the whole sacred theory.

But the great chorus resounded on, as we have seen, from shore to shore,
until the closing years of the seventeenth century; then arose men
who silenced it forever. The first leader who threw the weight of his
knowledge, thought, and authority against it was Leibnitz. He declared,
"There is as much reason for supposing Hebrew to have been the primitive
language of mankind as there is for adopting the view of Goropius, who
p