d the idea that the original language was Hebrew;
that this language, even including the medieval rabbinical punctuation,
was directly inspired by the Almighty; that Adam was taught it by God
himself in walks and talks; and that all other languages were derived
from it at the "confusion of Babel."

Next, we see parts of this theory fading out: the inspiration of the
rabbinical points begins to disappear. Adam, instead of being taught
directly by God, is "inspired" by him.

Then comes the third stage: advanced theologians endeavour to compromise
on the idea that Adam was "given verbal roots and a mental power."

Finally, in our time, we have them accepting the theory that language is
the result of an evolutionary process in obedience to laws more or less
clearly ascertained. Babel thus takes its place quietly among the sacred
myths.

As to the origin of writing, we have the more eminent theologians
at first insisting that God taught Adam to write; next we find them
gradually retreating from this position, but insisting that writing was
taught to the world by Noah. After the retreat from this position, we
find them insisting that it was Moses whom God taught to write.
But scientific modes of thought still progressed, and we next have
influential theologians agreeing that writing was a Mosaic invention;
this is followed by another theological retreat to the position that
writing was a post-Mosaic invention. Finally, all the positions are
relinquished, save by some few skirmishers who appear now and then
upon the horizon, making attempts to defend some subtle method of
"reconciling" the Babel myth with modern science.

Just after the middle of the nineteenth century the last stage of
theological defence was evidently reached--the same which is seen in the
history of almost every science after it has successfully fought its way
through the theological period--the declaration which we have already
seen foreshadowed by Wiseman, that the scientific discoveries in
question are nothing new, but have really always been known and held by
the Church, and that they simply substantiate the position taken by
the Church. This new contention, which always betokens the last gasp of
theological resistance to science, was now echoed from land to land. In
1856 it was given forth by a divine of the Anglican Church, Archdeacon
Pratt, of Calcutta. He gives a long list of eminent philologists who had
done most to destroy the old supernatura