ThesegenerallinesofthoughtupongeologyanditskindredscienceofzoologywerefollowedbySt。ThomasAquinasandbythewholebodyofmedievaltheologians，sofarastheygaveanyattentiontosuchsubjects。
Thenextdevelopmentofgeology，mainlyunderChurchguidance，wasbymeansofthescholastictheology。Phrase-makingwassubstitutedforinvestigation。WithouttheChurchandwithinitwonderfulcontributionswerethusmade。IntheeleventhcenturyAvicennaaccountedforthefossilsbysuggestinga“stone-makingforce“；[129]inthethirteenth，AlberttheGreatattributedthemtoa“formativequality；“[130]inthefollowingcenturiessomephilosophersventuredtheideathattheygrewfromseed；andtheAristoteliandoctrineofspontaneousgenerationwasconstantlyusedtoprovethatthesestonyfossilspossessedpowersofreproductionlikeplantsandanimals。[131]
[129]Vislapidifica。
[130]Virtusformativa。
[131]SeeauthoritiesgiveninMr。Ward’sassay，asabove。
Still，atvarioustimesandplaces，germsimplantedbyGreekandRomanthoughtwerewarmedintolife。TheArabianschoolsseemtohavebeenlessfetteredbytheletteroftheKoranthanthecontemporaryChristianscholarsbytheletteroftheBible；andtoAvicennabelongsthecreditoffirstannouncingsubstantiallythemoderngeologicaltheoryofchangesintheearth’ssurface。[132]
[132]ForAvicenna，seeLyellandD’Archiac。
ThedirectinfluenceoftheReformationwasatfirstunfavourabletoscientificprogress，fornothingcouldbemoreatvariancewithanyscientifictheoryofthedevelopmentoftheuniversethantheideasoftheProtestantleaders。ThatstrictadherencetothetextofScripturewhichmadeLutherandMelanchthondenouncetheideathattheplanetsrevolveaboutthesun，wasnaturallyextendedtoeveryotherscientificstatementatvariancewiththesacredtext。ThereismuchreasontobelievethatthefettersuponscientificthoughtwerecloserunderthestrictinterpretationofScripturebytheearlyProtestantsthantheyhadbeenundertheolderChurch。ThedominantspiritamongtheReformersisshownbythedeclarationofPeterMartyrtotheeffectthat，ifawrongopinionshouldobtainregardingthecreationasdescribedinGenesis，“allthepromisesofChristfallintonothing，andallthelifeofourreligionwouldbelost。”[133]
[133]SeehisCommentaryonGenesis，citedbyZoeckler，GeschichtederBeziehungenzwischenTheologieundNaturwissenschaft，vol。i，p。690。
InthetimesimmediatelysucceedingtheReformationmatterswentfrombadtoworse。UnderLutherandMelanchthontherewassomelittlefreedomofspeculation，butundertheirsuccessorstherewasnone；toquestionanyinterpretationofLuthercametobethoughtalmostaswickedastoquestiontheliteralinterpretationoftheScripturesthemselves。Examplesofthisareseeninthestrugglesbetweenthosewhoheldthatbirdswerecreatedentirelyfromwaterandthosewhoheldthattheywerecreatedoutofwaterandmud。InthecityofLubeck，theancientcentreoftheHanseaticLeague，closeatthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury，Pfeiffer，“GeneralSuperintendent“orbishopinthoseparts，publishedhisPansophiaMosaica，calculated，ashebelieved，tobeatbackscienceforever。InalongseriesofdeclamationsheinsistedthatinthestricttextofGenesisaloneissafety，thatitcontainsallwisdomandknowledge，humananddivine。Thisbeingthecase，whocouldcaretowastetimeonthestudyofmaterialthingsandgivethoughttothestructureoftheworld？Aboveall，who，aftersuchaproclamationbysucharulerintheLutheranIsrael，woulddaretotalkofthe“days“
mentionedinGenesisas“periodsoftime“；orofthe“firmament“
asnotmeaningasolidvaultovertheuniverse；orofthe“watersabovetheheavens“asnotcontainedinavastcisternsupportedbytheheavenlyvault；orofthe“windowsofheaven“asafigureofspeech？[134]
[134]ForPfeiffer，seeZoeckler，vol。i，pp。688，689。
InEnglandthesamespiritwasshownevenaslateasthetimeofSirMatthewHale。WefindinhisbookontheOriginationofMankind，publishedin1685，thestrictestdevotiontoatheoryofcreationbaseduponthemereletterofScripture，andacompleteinabilitytodrawknowledgeregardingtheearth’soriginandstructurefromanyothersource。
WhiletheLutheran，Calvinistic，andAnglicanReformersclungtoliteralinterpretationsofthesacredbooks，andturnedtheirfacesawayfromscientificinvestigation，itwasamongtheircontemporariesattherevivaloflearningthattherebegantoarisefruitfulthoughtinthisfield。Thenitwas，aboutthebeginningofthesixteenthcentury，thatLeonardodaVinci，asgreatageniusinscienceasinart，broachedthetrueideaastotheoriginoffossilremains；andhiscompatriot，Fracastoro，developedthisonthemodernlinesofthought。OthersinotherpartsofEuropetookuptheidea，and，whilemixingwithitmanycrudities，drewfromitmoreandmoretruth。TowardtheendofthesixteenthcenturyBernardPalissy，inFrance，tookholdofitwiththesamegeniuswhichheshowedinartisticcreation；but，remarkableaswerehisassertionsofscientificrealities，theycouldgainlittlehearing。Theologians，philosophers，andevensomescientificmenofvalue，undertheswayofscholasticphrases，continuedtoinsistuponsuchexplanationsasthatfossilsweretheproductof“fattymattersetintoafermentationbyheat“；orofa“lapidificjuice“；[135]orofa“seminalair“；[136]orofa“tumultuousmovementofterrestrialexhalations“；andtherewasaprevailingbeliefthatfossilremains，ingeneral，mightbebroughtundertheheadof“sportsofNature。”apiousturnbeinggiventothisphrasebythesuggestionthatthese“sports“indicatedsomeinscrutablepurposeoftheAlmighty。
[135]Succuslapidificus。
[136]Auraseminalis。
ThisremainedaleadingorthodoxmodeofexplanationintheChurch，CatholicandProtestant，forcenturies。
II。EFFORTSTOSUPPRESSTHESCIENTIFICVIEW。
Butthescientificmethodcouldnotbeentirelyhidden；and，nearthebeginningoftheseventeenthcentury，DeClave，Bitaud，andDeVillonreviveditinFrance。StraightwaythetheologicalfacultyofParisprotestedagainstthescientificdoctrineasunscriptural，destroyedtheoffendingtreatises，banishedtheirauthorsfromParis，andforbadethemtoliveintownsorenterplacesofpublicresort。[137]
[137]SeeMorley，LifeofPalissythePotter，vol。ii，p。315etseq。
Thechampionsofscience，thoughdepressedforatime，quietlylabouredon，especiallyinItaly。Halfacenturylater，Steno，aDane，andScilla，anItalian，wentstillfurtherintherightdirection；and，thoughtheyandtheirdisciplestookgreatpainstothrowatubtothewhale，intheshapeofsundryvagueconcessionstotheGenesislegends，theydevelopedgeologicaltruthmoreandmore。
InFrance，theoldtheologicalspiritremainedexceedinglypowerful。AboutthemiddleoftheeighteenthcenturyBuffonmadeanotherattempttostatesimplegeologicaltruths；butthetheologicalfacultyoftheSorbonnedraggedhimatoncefromhishighposition，forcedhimtorecantignominiously，andtoprinthisrecantation。Itrunsasfollows：“IdeclarethatIhadnointentiontocontradictthetextofScripture；thatIbelievemostfirmlyallthereinrelatedaboutthecreation，bothastoorderoftimeandmatteroffact。Iabandoneverythinginmybookrespectingtheformationoftheearth，andgenerallyallwhichmaybecontrarytothenarrativeofMoses。”ThishumiliatingdocumentremindsuspainfullyofthatforceduponGalileoahundredyearsbefore。
IthasbeenwellobservedbyoneofthegreatestofmodernauthoritiesthatthedoctrinewhichBuffonthus“abandoned“isasfirmlyestablishedasthatoftheearth’srotationuponitsaxis。[138]Yetonehundredandfiftyyearswererequiredtosecureforitevenafairhearing；theprevailingdoctrineoftheChurchcontinuedtobethat“allthingsweremadeatthebeginningoftheworld。”andthattosaythatstonesandfossilsweremadebeforeorsince“thebeginning“iscontrarytoScripture。Againwefindtheologicalsubstitutesforscientificexplanationripeningintophrasesmoreandmorehollow——makingfossils“sportsofNature。”or“mineralconcretions。”or“creationsofplasticforce。”or“models“madebytheCreatorbeforehehadfullydecideduponthebestmannerofcreatingvariousbeings。
[138]SeecitationandremarkinLyell’sPrinciplesofGeology，chap。iii，p。57；alsoHuxley，EssaysonControvertedQuestions，p。62。
Ofthisperiod，whentheologicalsubstitutesforsciencewerecarryingallbeforethem，therestillexistsamonumentcommemoratingatthesametimeafarceandatragedy。ThisistheworkofJohannBeringer，professorintheUniversityofWurzburgandprivatephysiciantothePrince-Bishop——thetreatisebearingthetitleLithographiaeWirceburgensisSpecimenPrimum。”illustratedwiththemarvellouslikenessesoftwohundredfiguredorratherinsectiformstones。”Beringer，forthegreatergloryofGod，hadpreviouslycommittedhimselfsocompletelytothetheorythatfossilsaresimply“stonesofapeculiarsort，hiddenbytheAuthorofNatureforhisownpleasure。”[139]thatsomeofhisstudentsdeterminedtogivehisfaithinthatpiousdoctrineathoroughtrial。Theythereforepreparedacollectionofshamfossilsinbakedclay，imitatingnotonlyplants，reptiles，andfishesofeverysortthattheirknowledgeorimaginationcouldsuggest，butevenHebrewandSyriacinscriptions，oneofthemthenameoftheAlmighty；andthesetheyburiedinaplacewheretheprofessorwaswonttosearchforspecimens。ThejoyofBeringeronunearthingtheseproofsoftheimmediateagencyofthefingerofGodincreatingfossilsknewnobounds。Atgreatcosthepreparedthisbook，whosetwenty-twoelaborateplatesoffacsimileswereforevertosettlethequestioninfavouroftheologyandagainstscience，andprefixedtotheworkanallegoricaltitlepage，whereinnotonlythegloryofhisownsovereign，butthatofheavenitself，waspicturedasbaseduponapyramidofthesemiraculousfossils。Sorobustwashisfaiththatnotevenaprematureexposureofthefraudcoulddissuadehimfromthepublicationofhisbook。Dismissinginonecontemptuouschapterthisexposureasaslanderbyhisrivals，heappealedtothelearnedworld。Buttheshoutoflaughterthatwelcomedtheworksoonconvincedevenitsauthor。Invaindidhetrytosuppressit；and，accordingtotradition，havingwastedhisfortuneinvainattemptstobuyupallthecopiesofit，andbeingtauntedbytherivalswhomhehadthoughttooverwhelm，hediedofchagrin。Evendeathdidnotendhismisfortunes。ThecopiesofthefirsteditionhavingbeensoldbyagracelessdescendanttoaLeipsicbookseller，asecondeditionwasbroughtoutunderanewtitle，andthis，too，isnowmuchsoughtasapreciousmemorialofhumancredulity。[140]
[139]SeeBeringer’sLithographiae，etc。，p。91。
[140]SeeCarus，GeschichtederZoologie，Munich，1872，p。467，note，andReusch，BibelundNatur，p。197。Alistofauthoritiesuponthisepisode，withthetextofoneoftheepigramscirculatedatpoorBeringer’sexpense，isgivenbyDr。ReussintheSerapeumfor1852，p。203。ThebookitselftheoriginalimpressionisintheWhiteLibraryatCornellUniversity。ForBeringerhimself，seeespeciallytheencyclopediaofErschandGruber，andtheAllgemeinedeutscheBiographie。
Buteventhisdiscomfituredidnotendtheideawhichhadcausedit，for，althoughsomelatitudewasallowedamongthevarioustheologico-scientificexplanations，itwasstillheldmeritorioustobelievethatallfossilswereplacedinthestrataononeofthecreativedaysbythehandoftheAlmighty，andthatthiswasdoneforsomemysteriouspurpose，probablyforthetrialofhumanfaith。
Strangeasitmayatfirstseem，thetheologicalwaragainstascientificmethodingeologywaswagedmorefiercelyinProtestantcountriesthaninCatholic。TheolderChurchhadlearnedbyhercostlymistakes，especiallyinthecasesofCopernicusandGalileo，whatdangerstoherclaimofinfallibilitylayinmeddlingwithagrowingscience。InItaly，therefore，comparativelylittleoppositionwasmade，whileEnglandfurnishedthemostbitteropponentstogeologysolongasthecontroversycouldbemaintained，andthemostactivenegotiatorsinpatchingupatruceonthebasisofashamscienceafterward。TheChurchofEnglanddid，indeed，producesomenoblemen，likeBishopClaytonandJohnMitchell，whostoodfirmlybythescientificmethod；buttheseappeargenerallytohavebeenoverwhelmedbyachorusofchurchmenanddissenters，whosemixturesoftheologyandscience，sometimestragicintheirresultsandsometimescomic，areamongthemostinstructivethingsinmodernhistory。[141]