In1615FatherJeanBoucherpublishesthefirstofmanyeditionsofhisSacredBouquetoftheHolyLand。HedepictsthehorrorsoftheDeadSeainanumberofstrikingantitheses，andamongtheseisthestatementthatitismadeofmudratherthanofwater，thatitsoilswhateverisputintoit，andsocorruptsthelandaboutitthatnotabladeofgrassgrowsinallthatregion。
Inthesamespirit，thirteenyearslater，theProtestantChristopherHeidmannpublisheshisPalaestina，inwhichhespeaksofafluidresemblingbloodoozingfromtherocksabouttheDeadSea，andcitesauthoritiestoprovethatthestatueofLot’swifestillexistsandgivessignsoflife。
Yet，asweneartheendofthesixteenthcentury，someevidencesofahealthfulandfruitfulscepticismbegintoappear。
Theoldstreamoftravellers，commentators，andpreachers，acceptingtraditionandrepeatingwhattheyhavebeentold，flowson；buthereandtherewearerefreshedbythesightofamanwhoreallybeginstothinkandlookforhimself。
FirstamongtheseistheFrenchnaturalistPierreBelon。Asregardstheordinarywonders，hehadthesimplefaithofhistime。Amongamultitudeofsimilarthings，hebelievedthathesawthestonesonwhichthedisciplesweresleepingduringtheprayerofChrist；thestoneonwhichtheLordsatwhenheraisedLazarusfromthedead；theLord’sfootprintsonthestonefromwhichheascendedintoheaven；and，mostcuriousofall，“thestonewhichthebuildersrejected。”Yethemakessomeadvanceonhispredecessors，sinceheshowsinonepassagethathehadthoughtouttheprocessbywhichthesimplermythsofPalestineweremade。For，betweenBethlehemandJerusalem，heseesafieldcoveredwithsmallpebbles，andofthesehesays：“Thecommonpeopletellyouthatamanwasoncesowingpeasthere，whenOurLadypassedthatwayandaskedhimwhathewasdoing；
themananswered“Iamsowingpebbles“andstraightwayallthepeaswerechangedintotheselittlestones。”
Hisascribingbeliefinthisexplanatorytransformationmythtothe“commonpeople“marksthefaintdawnofanewepoch。
TypicalalsoofthisnewclassistheGermanbotanistLeonhardRauwolf。HetravelsthroughPalestinein1575，and，thoughdevoutandattimescredulous，notescomparativelyfewoftheoldwonders，whilehemakesthoughtfulandcarefulmentionofthingsinnaturethathereallysaw；hedeclinestousetheeyesofthemonks，andsteadilyuseshisowntogoodpurpose。
Aswegoonintheseventeenthcentury，thiscurrentofnewthoughtisyetmoreevident；ahabitofobservingmorecarefullyandofcomparingobservationshadsetin；thegreatvoyagesofdiscoverybyColumbus，VascodaGama，Magellan，andotherswereproducingtheireffect；andthiseffectwasincreasedbytheinductivephilosophyofBacon，thereasoningsofDescartes，andthesuggestionsofMontaigne。
Soevidentwasthiscurrentthat，asfarbackastheearlydaysofthecentury，agreattheologian，QuaresmioofLodi，hadmadeuphismindtostopitforever。In1616，therefore，hebeganhisponderousworkentitledTheHistorical，Theological，andMoralExplanationoftheHolyLand。Helaboureduponitfornineyears，gavenineyearsmoretoperfectingit，andthenputitintothehandsofthegreatpublishinghouseofPlantinatAntwerp：theywerefouryearsinprintingandcorrectingit，andwhenitatlastappeareditseemedcertaintoestablishthetheologicalviewoftheHolyLandforalltime。WhiletakingabundantcareofothermythswhichhebelievedsanctifiedbyHolyScripture，QuaresmiodevotedhimselfatgreatlengthtotheDeadSea，butabovealltothesaltstatue；andhedivideshischapteronitintothreeparts，eachheadedbyaquestion：
First，“HOWwasLot’swifechangedintoastatueofsalt？”
secondly，“WHEREwasshethustransformed？”and，thirdly，“DOES
THATSTATUESTILLEXIST？”Througheachofthesedivisionshefightstotheendallwhoareinclinedtoswerveintheslightestdegreefromtheorthodoxopinion。Heutterlyrefusestocompromisewithanymoderntheorists。Toallsuchhesays，“ThenarrationofMosesishistoricalandistobereceivedinitsnaturalsense，andnoright-thinkingmanwilldenythis。”Tothosewhofavouredthefigurativeinterpretationhesays，“WithsuchreasoningsanypassageofScripturecanbedenied。”
Astothespotwherethemiracleoccurred，hediscussesfourplaces，butsettlesuponthepointwherethepictureofthestatueisgiveninAdrichom’smap。Astothecontinuedexistenceofthestatue，heplayswiththeopposingviewasacatfondlesamouse；andthenshowsthatthemostreveredancientauthorities，venerablemenstillliving，andtheBedouins，allagreethatitisstillinbeing。Throughoutthewholechapterhisthoroughnessinscripturalknowledgeandhisprofundityinlogicareonlyexcelledbyhisscornforthosetheologianswhowerewillingtoyieldanythingtorationalism。
Sopowerfulwasthisargumentthatitseemedtocarryeverythingbeforeit，notmerelythroughouttheRomanobedience，butamongthemosteminenttheologiansofProtestantism。
AsregardstheRomanChurch，wemaytakeasatypethemissionarypriestEugeneRoger，who，shortlyaftertheappearanceofQuaresmio’sbook，publishedhisowntravelsinPalestine。Hewasanobservantman，andhisworkcountsamongthoseofrealvalue；butthespiritofQuaresmiohadtakenpossessionofhimfully。Hisworkisprefacedwithamapshowingthepointsofmostimportanceinscripturalhistory，andamongtheseheidentifiestheplacewhereSamsonslewthethousandPhilistineswiththejawboneofanass，andwherehehidthegatesofGaza；thecavernwhichAdamandEveinhabitedaftertheirexpulsionfromparadise；thespotwhereBalaam’sassspoke；thetreeonwhichAbsalomwashanged；theplacewhereJacobwrestledwiththeangel；thesteepplacewheretheswinepossessedofdevilsplungedintothesea；thespotwheretheprophetElijahwastakenupinachariotoffire；and，ofcourse，thepositionofthesaltstatuewhichwasonceLot’swife。Henotonlyindicatesplacesonland，butplacesinthesea；thusheshowswhereJonahwasswallowedbythewhale，and“whereSt。Petercaughtonehundredandfifty-threefishes。”
AstotheDeadSeamiraclesgenerally，hedoesnotdwellonthematgreatlength；heevidentlyfeltthatQuaresmiohadexhaustedthesubject；butheshowslargelythefruitsofQuaresmio’steachinginothermatters。
So，too，wefindthethoughtsandwordsofQuaresmioechoingafarthroughtheGermanuniversities，inpublicdisquisitions，dissertations，andsermons。ThegreatBiblecommentators，bothCatholicandProtestant，generallyagreedinacceptingthem。
But，strongasthistheologicaltheorywas，wefindthat，astimewenton，itrequiredtobebracedsomewhat，andin1692Wedelius，ProfessorofMedicineatJena，choseasthesubjectofhisinauguraladdressThePhysiologyoftheDestructionofSodomandoftheStatueofSalt。
Itisamasterlyexampleof“sanctifiedscience。”Atgreatlengthhedwellsonthecharacteristicsofsulphur，salt，andthunderbolts；mixesupscripturaltexts，theology，andchemistryafteramostbewilderingfashion；andfinallycomestotheconclusionthatathunderbolt，flungbytheAlmighty，calcinedthebodyofLot’swife，andatthesametimevitrifieditsparticlesintoaglassymasslookinglikesalt。[437]
[437]ForZvallart，seehisTres-devotVoyagedeIerusalem，Antwerp，1608，bookiv，chapterviii。Hisjourneywasmadetwentyyearsbefore。ForFatherBoucher，seehisBouquetdelaTerreSaincte，Paris，1622，pp。447，448。ForHeidmann，seehisPalaestina，1689，pp。58-62。ForBelon’scredulityinmattersreferredto，seehisObservationsdePlusieursSingularitez，etc。，Paris，1553，pp。141-144；andforthelegendofthepeaschangedintopebbles，p。145；seealsoLartetinDeLuynes，vol。
iii，p。11。ForRauwolf，seetheReyssbuch，andTobler，Bibliographia。ForagoodacoountoftheinfluenceofMontaigneindevelopingFrenchscepticism，seePrevost-Paradol’sstudyonMontaigneprefixedtotheLeClerceditionoftheEssays，Paris，1865；alsothewell-knownpassagesinLecky’sRationalisminEurope。ForQuaresmioIhaveconsultedboththePlantineditionof1639andthesuperbnewVeniceeditionof1880-’82。Thelatter，thoughlessprizedbybookfanciers，isthemorevaluable，sinceitcontainssomeveryinterestingrecentnotes。
Fortheabovediscussion，seePlantinedition，vol。ii，pp。758
etseq。，andVeniceedition，vol。ii，pp。572-574。AstotheeffectofQuaresmioontheProtestantChurch，seeWedelius，DeStatuaSalis，Jenae，1692，pp。6，7，andelswehere。ForEugeneRoger，seehisLaTerreSaincte，Paris，1664；themap，showingvarioussitesreferredto，isinthepreface；andforbasilisks，salamanders，etc。，seepp。89-92，139，218，andelsewhere。
Notonlyweretheseviewsdemonstrated，sofarastheologico-scientificreasoningcoulddemonstrateanything，butitwasclearlyshown，byacontinuouschainoftestimonyfromtheearliestages，thatthesaltstatueatUsdumhadbeenrecognisedasthebodyofLot’swifebyJews，Mohammedans，andtheuniversalChristianChurch，“always，everywhere，andbyall。”
Undertheinfluenceofteachingslikethese——andofthewinterrains——newwondersbegantoappearatthesaltpillar。In1661
theFranciscanmonkZwinnerpublishedhistravelsinPalestine，andgavenotonlymostoftheoldmythsregardingthesaltstatue，butanewone，insomerespectsmorestrikingthananyoftheold——forhehadheardthatadog，alsotransformedintosalt，wasstandingbythesideofLot’swife。
EventhemoresolidBenedictinescholarswerecarriedaway，andwefindintheSacredHistorybyProf。Mezger，oftheorderofSt。Benedict，publishedin1700，arenewalofthedeclarationthatthesaltstatuemustbea“PERPETUALmemorial。”
Butitwassoonevidentthatthescientificcurrentwasstillworkingbeneaththisponderousmassoftheologicalauthority。A
typicalevidenceofthiswefindin1666inthetravelsofDoubdan，acanonofSt。Denis。AstotheDeadSea，hesaysthathesawnosmoke，noclouds，andno“black，stickywater“；astothestatueofLot’swife，hesays，“Themodernsdonotbelievesoeasilythatshehaslastedsolong“；then，asifalarmedathisownboldness，heconcedesthattheseaMAYbeblackandstickyinthemiddle；andfromLot’swifeheescapesundercoverofsomepiousgeneralities。FouryearslateranotherFrenchecclesiastic，JacquesGoujon，referringinhispublishedtravelstothelegendsofthesaltpillar，says：“Peoplemaybelievethesestoriesasmuchastheychoose；Ididnotseeit，nordidIgothere。”So，too，in1697，Morison，adignitaryoftheFrenchChurch，havingtravelledinPalestine，confessesthat，astothestoryofthepillarofsalt，hehasdifficultyinbelievingit。
ThesamecurrentisobservedworkingstillmorestronglyinthetravelsoftheRev。HenryMaundrell，anEnglishchaplainatAleppo，whotravelledthroughPalestineduringthesameyear。
HepourscontemptoverthelegendsoftheDeadSeaingeneral：
astothestorythatbirdscouldnotflyoverit，hesaysthathesawthemflyingthere；astotheutterabsenceoflifeinthesea，hesawsmallshellsinit；hesawnotracesofanyburiedcities；andastothestoriesregardingthestatueofLot’swifeandtheproposaltovisitit，hesays，“Norcouldwegivefaithenoughtothesereportstoinduceustogoonsuchanerrand。”
TheinfluenceoftheBaconianphilosophyonhismindisveryclear；for，inexpressinghisdisbeliefintheDeadSeaapples，withtheircontentsofashes，hesaysthathesawnone，andhecitesLordBaconinsupportofscepticismonthisandsimilarpoints。
Butthestrongesteffectofthisgrowingscepticismisseenneartheendofthatcentury，whentheeminentDutchcommentatorClericusLeClercpublishedhiscommentaryonthePentateuchandhisDissertationontheStatueofSalt。
AtgreatlengthhebringsallhisshrewdnessandlearningtobearagainstthewholelegendoftheactualtransformationofLot’swifeandtheexistenceofthesaltpillar，andendsbysayingthat“thewholestoryisduetothevanityofsomeandthecredulityofmore。”
Inthebeginningoftheeighteenthcenturywefindnewtributariestothisrivuletofscientificthought。In1701
FatherFelixBeaugranddismissestheDeadSealegendsandthesaltstatueverycurtlyanddryly——expressingnothisbeliefinit，butaconventionalwishtobelieve。
In1709ascholarappearedinanotherpartofEuropeandofdifferentfaith，whodidfarmorethananyofhispredecessorstoenveloptheDeadSealegendsinanatmosphereoftruth——AdrianReland，professorattheUniversityofUtrecht。HisworkonPalestineisamonumentofpatientscholarship，havingasitsnucleusaloveoftruthastruth：thereisnoirreverenceinhim，buthequietlybrushesawayagreatmassofmythsandlegends：astothestatueofLot’swife，hetreatsitwarily，butappliesthecomparativemethodtoitwithkillingeffect，byshowingthatthestoryofitsmiraculousrenewalisbutoneamongmanyofitskind。[438]
[438]ForZwinner，seehisBlumenbuchdesHeyligenLandes，Munchen，1661，p。454。ForMezger，seehisSacraHistoria，Augsburg，1700，p。30。ForDoubdan，seehisVoyagedelaTerre-