德国开元华人社区 开元周游
标题: 神学对接种、种痘和麻醉剂应用的反对 [打印本页]
作者: 蝴蝶的语言 时间: 11.3.2009 03:26
标题: 神学对接种、种痘和麻醉剂应用的反对
神学对接种、种痘和麻醉剂应用的反对 |
讨论一下现代医学最非凡的斗争之一。早在上个世纪，布瓦耶（Boyer）就引入了法国预防天花的接种法，英国一些有头脑的医生，在蒙塔古夫人和梅特兰的鼓舞下也以他为榜样。英吉利海峡两岸医学界的极端保守分子立即感到非常吃惊，神学很快找到了反对这种新实践的各种深层理由。索邦神学院的法国神学家们对它进行了严正的谴责；在英国神学家中，叫喊得最凶的代表人物是爱德华·梅西牧师，他在1772年做了一次布道，题目是：《危险的和罪孽深重的接种法》（The Dangerous andSinful Practice of Inoculation），后来又以书的形式把它出版了。在这一布道中，他断言，约伯的瘟热大概就是融合性的天花；毫无疑问，魔鬼给他接种了；这种疾病是上帝为惩罚罪孽而传播的；所提议的对它们的预防的尝试，是“一种魔鬼的手术”。牧师德拉费耶先生的布道也同样慷慨激昂，他的布道的题目是：《接种与不可饶恕的实践》（Inoculation and Indefensible Prac tice）。这场战斗持续了30年。我们很高兴地看到，有些神职人员，其中包括伍斯特的主教马多克斯，在这场战斗中站在了正确理性的一边。但是到了1753年，坎特伯雷的一位著名的教区长在这座宗教圣城的布道坛上，对接种进行了谴责，他的许多教友纷纷仿效他。 在信奉新教的苏格兰，也有非常猛烈的攻击。许多牧师加入到谴责者的行列，指责这种新的实践是“公然抗拒上帝”，并且是“想竭力阻挠上帝的审判”。在大洋的我们这一边，对这个问题也只能通过斗争来解决。大约在1721年，波士顿的一位医生扎布迪尔·博伊尔斯顿博士进行了一次接种实验，他自己的儿子是他首批的实验对象之一。他很快遇到了巨大的敌视，以至于这个城市的市政委员禁止他重复这一实验。他的最主要的反对者，是苏格兰医生道格拉斯博士，他得到了医学界和报纸的支持。反对方的歪曲肆无忌惮，他们坚持认为接种就是“使人中毒”，而且他们极力要求当局以谋杀罪对博伊尔斯顿博士进行审讯。在这样为尘世处理了这个事件之后，他们进而要为另一个世界处理这个问题，他们强调，“一个人如果在早上把一家人都传染上了天花，那么他在晚上向上帝祈祷抵御这种疾病就是亵渎”；因为天花是“上帝对这些有罪的人的审判结果”，所以“阻止它只会使他更加愤怒”；“接种是对耶和华的特权的侵犯，因为利用疾病对有罪的人进行侵袭和伤害是他的权力”。在反对使用任何方法治疗任何疾病方面，人们所使用的与这个问题可能最没有关系的《圣经》的众多经文中，有这样一段经文同样得到了首肯——这就是《何西阿书》（Hosea，第6章，第1节）中的这段话：“他撕裂我们，也必医治。他打伤我们，也必缠裹。” 这些反对意见如此激烈，以至于博伊尔斯顿博士的生命都受到了威胁，有人认为晚上出门对他来说是不安全的。由于科顿·马瑟支持了这种新的实践，一只点燃了的手榴弹甚至扔进了他的住宅，这使得另一个献身于这种实践的教士隐藏了起来。许多新英格兰的清教徒神职人员都是博伊尔斯顿最坚定的支持者，应当说，这是他们的荣耀。英克里斯·马瑟和科顿·马瑟是最早表示支持接种的人之一，而正是由科顿·马瑟引起了博伊尔斯顿对接种的注意；在事态的关键时刻，波士顿的六个重要的教士利用他们的影响对博伊尔斯顿一方表示支持，并且和他一起遭到了诽谤。尽管否定者们反应迅速，当面讥笑马瑟家族在巫术方面所起的作用，竭力主张他们在那个问题上的轻信完全可以证明他们在这个问题上也是轻信的，但是，他们坚持了下来——在新英格兰的神职人员为其国家所做出的诸多贡献之中，当然应当记住这一点；这些与博伊尔斯顿和本杰明·富兰克林肩并肩站在一起的人，不得不抵御那些曾打击过欧洲接种支持者的同样武器的进攻——对他们”不忠诚于上帝的天启法则”的指责。 不久，事实就对否定者们予以了非常强有力的反驳，在第一次实验的一年或两年中，在波士顿和邻近的城市有近300人接受了博伊尔斯顿的接种，其中只有6人死亡；而在同一时期，在近6000名自然患天花病并且只接受了通常治疗的人中，有近1000人死亡。即使这时，否定者也没有绝望，在不得不承认接种的成功时，他们又求助于一种新的论据，并且回答说：“在主日把撒旦从他在人类身上的住所中驱赶走是件好事，但是法利赛人的孩子借助别卜西的帮助把他赶走是不正当的。如果我们想无愧于上帝的话，我们必须既要关注我们所做的事，也要关注所产生的结果。”然而，事实是难以辩驳的；尽管反对意见依然激烈，而且基于同样模糊的以《圣经》为依据的理由，这些反对意见持续了20多年，但新的实践在东半球和西半球仍在继续进行。 科学的医学的稳步前进，接下来又给我们带来了詹纳(Jenner）发现的种痘法。而这时，各种模糊的神学思想的残留物又使许多神职人员与退步的医生站在了一起。也许，詹纳的敌人中最恶毒的一个就是他那个专业的一个同行莫塞莱博士。莫塞莱在其著作《牛的传染病》（Lues Bovilla）扉页的卷首语中，提到詹纳及其追随者时说：“天父，请饶恕他们吧，他们不知道他们在做什么”，莫塞莱博士的这部书尤其得到了德罗莫尔（Dromore）的主教的认可。1798年，一些医生和神职人员成立了一个反接种协会，他们号召波士顿人禁止种痘，因为这是“对神本身、甚至是对上帝的意志的挑衅”，并且宣称，“上帝的法律禁止这种实践”。到了1803年，牧师拉姆斯登博士还在剑桥大学的一次布道中，把《圣经》经文与对詹纳的诽谤结合在一起，对种痘进行了厉声斥责；而普伦普特里和牧师罗兰·希尔在英格兰、沃特豪斯在美国、图勒特在法国、萨柯在意大利，以及其他许多善良和真诚的人，则在奋力推进这项事业。最终，科学、人性和正确的理性取得了胜利。最令人瞩目的结果很快出现了。死于这种可怕的灾祸的人数有了令人惊异的下降。在柏林，1783年以后的8年间，死于天花的儿童超过了4000人；而在1814年以后的8年间，在大规模采用了种痘法之后，在更多的死亡人数中，只有535人死于这种病。在维尔茨堡（Wurtemberg），在1772年以后的24年间，所有儿童中有1／13的人死于天花，而在1822年以后的12年间，死于天花的儿童只有1／1600。在哥本哈根，在引入接种牛痘以前的12年间，有5500人死于天花，而在引入接种牛痘以后的16年间，全丹麦只有158人死于此病。在维也纳，过去平均每年因患这种病而死亡的人数超过800人，但是近年来死亡人数在稳步、快速地下降，到了1803年，死亡人数已经减少到低于30人了。伦敦以前也受这种疾病的折磨，但是到了1890年，它的所有居民中只有一人死于这种病。就全世界而言，我们这个时代最受人尊敬的英国医生之一在公告中宣布的统计结果表明，“詹纳在一代人中已经挽救了、现在正在挽救而且在未来所有时代将会挽救的人数，超过了拿破仑的所有战争中死亡的人数”。 |
作者: 蝴蝶的语言 时间: 11.3.2009 03:32
1# 蝴蝶的语言
神学妥协的迹象——科学观点和方法的最终胜利
不过，幸运的是，早在后来的这些事件发生以前，科学就已经进入了这个领域，并且在逐渐消灭这类疾病。在那些为这一美好愿望而努力的早期工作者中，有伟大的荷兰医生布尔哈夫。他在哈勒姆医院的一个病房中发现，许多妇女在抽搐，而且彼此模仿各种疯狂的行为，他马上下令把一个烧煤的炉子送到病房中，把一个烙铁烧热，并且宣布说，他会用烙铁烫第一个开始抽搐的妇女的胳膊，这样，这种疯狂的现象再也没有出现。
医学科学的这些以及其他类似的处理精神病的成功方法，导致了神学下一阶段的发展。教会像通常一样，在妥协后开始寻找退路。18世纪初叶，耶稣会士德尔里奥的伟大著作又出了新的版本，在一百余年的时间里，神职人员们一直把这部著作用作与巫术战斗的教科书，但是在这一版中，撒旦在疾病中所扮演的角色发生了变化：该书暗示，虽然疾病有其自然原因，但撒旦肯定进入了人体以便使这些原因生效。这一著作声称，撒旦会“在满月时攻击那些头脑中充满了遐想的精神错乱者”；在其他病例中，他会“把胆汁搅成黑色”；在失明和失聪的病例中，他会“阻碍眼睛或耳朵的功能”。在接近本世纪时，人们发现，这种“重新阐述”显然也站不住脚了，于是，有人在英格兰进行了一种截然不同的尝试。
在1797年出版的第三版的《不列颠百科全书》（Encyclopoedia Britannica）中，在“着魔者”这个词条下，正统的观点得到了这样的描述：“魔鬼附体的真实性所依据的是与一般的真理体系同样的证据。”虽然，这一陈述肯定会使旧的神学情感得到满足，但是撰写者显然发现，在现代怀疑论世界中，如果提出这样的陈述而不对它加以某些限制是很危险的。因而又提出了另一个观点，即《新约全书》中的名人们“在谈到那些被一般设想为是魔鬼附体的不幸的人时，使用了粗俗的语言”。在以后的两三版中，该书都含有这种古怪的折中；不过，接近本世纪中叶时，所有相关的讨论全都悄然取消了。
科学拒绝与任何这样的观点纠缠，它加紧步伐，继续前进。到了本世纪末叶时，我们看到，罗德博士在里昂治疗一个非常严重的着魔病人时使用了特效催吐药。在这里，神话创造又出现了，有人说，当催吐药产生了效果时，人们看到许多绿色和黄色的魔鬼被驱赶着从着魔者的嘴中逃出。
在英格兰，对这种陈旧信念的最后一次重要的证明出现在1788年。当时，在布里斯托尔市附近，住着酗酒成性的癫痫病人乔治·卢金斯。在寻求施舍时，他坚持说他“着魔”了，并且上下跳跃、尖叫、像狗一样狂吠，并且用对《感恩赞》的滑稽模仿招待他的同伴，试图用这些来证明他“着魔”了。他被按照仪式带进了坦普尔教堂（Temple Church），七个牧师一起努力来为他祓魔。听到他们下的驱逐令，撒旦“凭借他地狱的洞穴”发誓，他不会从那个人的体内出来——用编年史家的话说，“这是一种除了班扬的《天路历程》（Pilgrims Progress）以外在别的地方找不到的誓言主，卢金斯也许就是从这里得到它的”。但是，这七个牧师最终还是胜利了，七个魔鬼被赶了出来，在这以后，卢金斯过起了隐居的生活，而且在他的余生中，他似乎被当作是仁慈的一个不朽成就而得到了赡养。付出了这一巨大努力后，旧的理论似乎在英格兰从事实上衰竭了。
科学虽然已经夺取了堡垒。1876年，在法国靠近亚眠的一个小镇上，有一个具有所有通常所说的魔鬼附体迹象的妇女被带到了牧师那里。人们哀求牧师为她祓魔，而牧师却把她带进了医院，在那里，通过科学的治疗，她很快恢复正常了。科学在这个重要领域的这一方面的最终胜利，主要是在本世纪下半叶取得的。在帕拉切尔苏斯、约翰·亨特、皮内尔、图克和埃斯基罗尔这一系列伟大的人物之后，又出现了一批思想家和实践者，他们通过科学的观察和研究，使真理又有了新的越来越有价值的发展。
在诸多对黑暗王子的堡垒产生影响的事实当中，也许尤其应当提到那些标志着“期待关注”（expectant attention）的事实——在这些事实中，这种对现象的期望会一直持续，直到对它们的渴望变成了病态的和难以克服的，而这种渴望的产生也许是无意识的。应当提及的其他类现象也很容易引起流行病，业已发现，它们起源于病态模仿倾向。还有，那些已受催眠术控制的群体也值得注意。人们越来越多地发现，歇斯底里的形式和结果是数不胜数的。有一项研究涉及到对身体功能的想象的后果，这一研究也获得了非凡的成果。
最后，作为对这一工作的补充，在历史上和文献中，可以看到一大批学者，他们对创造神话和兜售奇迹进行了调查研究。这样就清除了长期以来笼罩在各种精神疾病上空的超自然主义的乌云，并且从此使这些疾病置于科学有力的控制之下。有些谨小慎微的人仍在徘徊，他们发现，死守着残缺不全的关于魔鬼附体的陈旧信念，会让他们感到安慰。约翰·卫斯理在上个世纪的顽固主张“抛开巫术就是抛开《圣经》”在本世纪下半叶得到了法国一个著名的天主教神职人员有气无力的回应，他声称：“否认魔鬼附体就是指责耶稣和他的使徒们欺诈。”他还问道：“对于那些看见并且宣布有魔鬼附体现象的使徒、教父和圣徒们，怎么能否认他们的证言呢？”在信奉新教的英格兰，也回荡着一种微弱的回声。
然而，尽管有这些谨小慎微者的反对，近年来，科学依然稳步地与基督教徒手拉手使这个领域变得宽厚仁慈，以便为人类创造一个更美好的未来。我们看到，现在有创见的医生和热诚的神职人员常常一起工作，但是，即使在基督教最开明的地区也不能指望，从精神病院被赶出来的撒旦，会在修道院和野营布道会上消失。
作者: 在美一方 时间: 11.3.2009 04:27
本帖最后由 在美一方 于 11.3.2009 04:32 编辑
1# 蝴蝶的语言
节选自
Andrew Dickson White. A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom
Chapter XIII: From Miracles to Medicine
鲁旭东译本：基督教世界科学与神学论战史
第13章 从奇迹到医学
第十节
本节英文原文
10. Theological Opposition to Inoculation, Vaccination, and the Use of Anæsthetics
I hasten now to one of the most singular struggles of medical science during modern times. Early in the last century Boyer presented inoculation as a preventive of smallpox in France, and thoughtful physicians in England, inspired by Lady Montagu and Maitland, followed his example. Ultra-conservatives in medicine took fright at once on both sides of the Channel, and theology was soon finding profound reasons against the new practice. The French theologians of the Sorbonne solemnly condemned it; the English theologians were most loudly represented by the Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a sermon entitled The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation. In this he declared that Job's distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is ``a diabolical operation.'' Not less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Delafaye, entitled Inoculation an Indefensible Practice. This struggle went on for thirty years. It is a pleasure to note some churchmen - and among them Madox, Bishop of Worcester - giving battle on the side of right reason; but as late as 1753 we have a noted rector at Canterbury denouncing inoculation from his pulpit in the primatial city, and many of his brethren following his example.
The same opposition was vigorous in Protestant Scotland. A large body of ministers joined in denouncing the new practice as ``flying in the face of Providence,'' and ``endeavouring to baffle a Divine judgment.''
On our own side of the ocean, also, this question had to be fought out. About the year 1721 Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, a physician in Boston, made an experiment in inoculation, one of his first subjects being his own son. He at once encountered bitter hostility, so that the selectmen of the city forbade him to repeat the experiment. Foremost among his opponents was Dr. Douglas, a Scotch physician, supported by the medical professton and the newspapers. The violence of the opposing party knew no bounds; they insisted that inoculation was ``poisoning,'' and they urged the authorities to try Dr. Boylston for murder. Having thus settled his case for this world, they proceeded to settle it for the next, insisting that ``for a man to infect a family in the morning with smallpox and to pray to God in the evening against the disease is blasphemy''; that the smallpox is ``a judgment of God on the sins of the people,'' and that ``to avert it is but to provoke him more''; that inoculation is ``an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.'' Among the mass of scriptural texts most remote from any possible bearing on the subject one was employed which was equally cogent against any use of healing means in any disease - the words of Hosea: ``He hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.''
So bitter was this opposition that Dr. Boylston's life was in danger; it was considered unsafe for him to be out of his house in the evening; a lighted grenade was even thrown into the house of Cotton Mather, who had favoured the new practice, and had sheltered another clergyman who had submitted himself to it.
To the honour of the Puritan clergy of New England, it should be said that many of them were Boylston's strongest supporters. Increase and Cotton Mather had been among the first to move in favour of inoculation, the latter having called Boylston's attention to it; and at the very crisis of affairs six of the leading clergymen of Boston threw their influence on Boylston's side and shared the obloquy brought upon him. Although the gainsayers were not slow to fling into the faces of the Mathers their action regarding witchcraft, urging that their credulity in that matter argued credulity in this, they persevered, and among the many services rendered by the clergymen of New England to their country this ought certainly to be remembered; for these men had to withstand, shoulder to shoulder with Boylston and Benjamin Franklin, the same weapons which were hurled at the supporters of inoculation in Europe - charges of ``unfaithfulness to the revealed law of God.''
The facts were soon very strong against the gainsayers: within a year or two after the first experiment nearly three hundred persons had been inoculated by Boylston in Boston and neighbouring towns, and out of these only six had died; whereas, during the same period, out of nearly six thousand persons who had taken smallpox naturally, and had received only the usual medical treatment, nearly one thousand had died. Yet even here the gainsayers did not despair, and, when obliged to confess the success of inoculation, they simply fell back upon a new argument, and answered: ``It was good that Satan should be dispossessed of his habitation which he had taken up in men in our Lord's day, but it was not lawful that the children of the Pharisees should cast him out by the help of Beelzebub. We must always have an eye to the matter of what we do as well as the result, if we intend to keep a good conscience toward God.'' But the facts were too strong; the new practice made its way in the New World as in the Old, though bitter opposition continued, and in no small degree on vague scriptural grounds, for more than twenty years longer.
The steady evolution of scientific medicine brings us next to Jenner's discovery of vaccination. Here, too, sundry vague survivals of theological ideas caused many of the clergy to side with retrograde physicians. Perhaps the most virulent of Jenner's enemies was one of his professional brethren, Dr. Moseley, who placed on the title-page of his book, Lues Bovilla, the motto, referring to Jenner and his followers, ``Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do'': this book of Dr. Moseley was especially indorsed by the Bishop of Dromore. In 1798 an Anti-vaccination Society was formed by physicians and clergymen, who called on the people of Boston to suppress vaccination, as ``bidding defiance to Heaven itself, even to the will of God,'' and declared that ``the law of God prohibits the practice.'' As late as 1803 the Rev. Dr. Ramsden thundered against vaccination in a sermon before the University of Cambridge, mingling texts of Scripture with calumnies against Jenner; but Plumptre and the Rev. Rowland Hill in England, Waterhouse in America, Thouret in France, Sacco in Italy, and a host of other good men and true, pressed forward, and at last science, humanity, and right reason gained the victory. Most striking results quickly followed. The diminution in the number of deaths from the terrible scourge was amazing. In Berlin, during the eight years following 1783, over four thousand children died of the smallpox; while during the eight years following 1814, after vaccination had been largely adopted, out of a larger number of deaths there were but five hundred and thirty-five from this disease. In Wurtemberg, during the twenty-four years following 1772, one in thirteen of all the children died of smallpox, while during the eleven years after 1822 there died of it only one in sixteen hundred. In Copenhagen, during twelve years before the introduction of vaccination, fifty-five hundred persons died of smallpox, and during the sixteen years after its introduction only one hundred and fifty-eight persons died of it throughout all Denmark. In Vienna, where the average yearly mortality from this disease had been over eight hundred, it was steadily and rapidly reduced, until in 1803 it had fallen to less than thirty; and in London, formerly so afflicted by this scourge, out of all her inhabitants there died of it in 1890 but one. As to the world at large, the result is summed up by one of the most honoured English physicians of our time, in the declaration that ``Jenner has saved, is now saving, and will continue to save in all coming ages, more lives in one generation than were destroyed in all the wars of Napoleon.''
It will have been noticed by those who have read this history thus far that the record of the Church generally was far more honourable in this struggle than in many which preceded it: the reason is not difficult to find; the decline of theology enured to the advantage of religion, and religion gave powerful aid to science.
Yet there have remained some survivals both in Protestantism and in Catholicism which may be regarded with curiosity. A small body of perversely ingenious minds in the medical profession in England have found a few ardent allies among the less intellectual clergy. The Rev. Mr. Rothery and the Rev. Mr. Allen, of the Primitive Methodists, have for sundry vague theological reasons especially distinguished themselves by opposition to compulsory vaccination; but it is only just to say that the great body of the English clergy have for a long time taken the better view.
Far more painful has been the recent history of the other great branch of the Christian Church - a history developed where it might have been least expected: the recent annals of the world hardly present a more striking antithesis between Religion and Theology.
On the religious side few things in the history of the Roman Church have been more beautiful than the conduct of its clergy in Canada during the great outbreak of ship-fever among immigrants at Montreal about the middle of the present century. Day and night the Catholic priesthood of that city ministered fearlessly to those victims of sanitary ignorance; fear of suffering and death could not drive these ministers from their work; they laid down their lives cheerfully while carrying comfort to the poorest and most ignorant of our kind: such was the record of their religion. But in 1885 a record was made by their theology. In that year the smallpox broke out with great virulence in Montreal. The Protestant population escaped almost entirely by vaccination; but multitudes of their Catholic fellow-citizens, under some vague survival of the old orthodox ideas, refused vaccination; and suffered fearfully. When at last the plague became so serious that travel and trade fell off greatly and quarantine began to be established in neighbouring cities, an effort was made to enforce compulsory vaccination. The result was, that large numbers of the Catholic working population resisted and even threatened bloodshed. The clergy at first tolerated and even encouraged this conduct: the Abbe Filiatrault, priest of St. James's Church, declared in a sermon that, ``if we are afflicted with smallpox, it is because we had a carnival last winter, feasting the flesh, which has offended the Lord; it is to punish our pride that God has sent us smallpox.'' The clerical press went further: the Stendard exhorted the faithful to take up arms rather than submit to vaccination, and at least one of the secular papers was forced to pander to the same sentiment. The Board of Health struggled against this superstition, and addressed a circular to the Catholic clergy, imploring them to recommend vaccination; but, though two or three complied with this request, the great majority were either silent or openly hostile. The Oblate Fathers, whose church was situated in the very heart of the infected district, continued to denounce vaccination; the faithful were exhorted to rely on devotional exercises of various sorts; under the sanction of the hierarchy a great procession was ordered with a solemn appeal to the Virgin, and the use of the rosary was carefully specified.
Meantime, the disease, which had nearly died out among the Protestants, raged with ever-increasing virulence among the Catholics; and, the truth becoming more and more clear, even to the most devout, proper measures were at last enforced and the plague was stayed, though not until there had been a fearful waste of life among these simple-hearted believers, and germs of scepticism planted in the hearts of their children which will bear fruit for generations to come.
Another class of cases in which the theologic spirit has allied itself with the retrograde party in medical science is found in the history of certain remedial agents; and first may be named cocaine. As early as the middle of the sixteenth century the value of coca had been discovered in South America; the natives of Peru prized it highly, and two eminent Jesuits, Joseph Acosta and Antonio Julian, were converted to this view. But the conservative spirit in the Church was too strong; in 1567 the Second Council of Lima, consisting of bishops from all parts of South America, condemned it, and two years later came a royal decree declaring that ``the notions entertained by the natives regarding it are an illusion of the devil.''
As a pendant to this singular mistake on the part of the older Church came another committed by many Protestants. In the early years of the seventeenth century the Jesuit missionaries in South America learned from the natives the value of the so-called Peruvian bark in the treatment of ague; and in 1638, the Countess of Cinchon, Regent of Peru, having derived great benefit from the new remedy, it was introduced into Europe. Although its alkaloid, quinine, is perhaps the nearest approach to a medical specific, and has diminished the death rate in certain regions to an amazing extent, its introduction was bitterly opposed by many conservative members of the medical profession, and in this opposition large numbers of ultra-Protestants joined, out of hostility to the Roman Church. In the heat of sectarian feeling the new remedy was stigmatized as ``an invention of the devil''; and so strong was this opposition that it was not introduced into England until 1653, and even then its use was long held back, owing mainly to anti-Catholic feeling.
What the theological method on the ultra-Protestant side could do to help the world at this very time is seen in the fact that, while this struggle was going on, Hoffmann was attempting to give a scientific theory of the action of the devil in causing Job's boils. This effort at a quasi-scientific explanation which should satisfy the theological spirit, comical as it at first seems, is really worthy of serious notice, because it must be considered as the beginning of that inevitable effort at compromise which we see in the history of every science when it begins to appear triumphant.
But I pass to a typical conflict in our days, and in a Protestant country. In 1847, James Young Simpson, a Scotch physician, who afterward rose to the highest eminence in his profession, having advocated the use of anæ sthetics in obstetrical cases, was immediately met by a storm of opposition. This hostility flowed from an ancient and time-honoured belief in Scotland. As far back as the year 1591, Eufame Macalyane, a lady of rank, being charged with seeking the aid of Agnes Sampson for the relief of pain at the time of the birth of her two sons, was burned alive on the Castle Hill of Edinburgh; and this old theological view persisted even to the middle of the nineteenth century. From pulpit after pulpit Simpson's use of chloroform was denounced as impious and contrary to Holy Writ; texts were cited abundantly, the ordinary declaration being that to use chloroform was ``to avoid one part of the primeval curse on woman.'' Simpson wrote pamphlet after pamphlet to defend the blessing which he brought into use; but he seemed about to be overcome, when he seized a new weapon, probably the most absurd by which a great cause was ever won: ``My opponents forget,'' he said, ``the twenty-first verse of the second chapter of Genesis; it is the record of the first surgical operation ever performed, and that text proves that the Maker of the universe, before he took the rib from Adam's side for the creation of Eve, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam.'' This was a stunning blow, but it did not entirely kill the opposition; they had strength left to maintain that the ``deep sleep of Adam took place before the introduction of pain into the world---in a state of innocence.;; But now a new champion intervened---Thomas Chalmers: with a few pungent arguments from his pulpit he scattered the enemy forever, and the greatest battle of science against suffering was won. This victory was won not less for religion. Wisely did those who raised the monument at Boston to one of the discoverers of anaesthetics inscribe upon its pedestal the words from our sacred text, ``This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.''
作者: 在美一方 时间: 11.3.2009 04:34
本帖最后由 在美一方 于 11.3.2009 04:37 编辑
2# 蝴蝶的语言
节选自同一本书的第16章
原文：
Theological ``Restatements'' - Final Triumph of Scientific View and Methods
But, happily, long before these latter occurrences, science had come into the field and was gradually diminishing this class of diseases. Among the earlier workers to this better purpose was the great Dutch physician Boerhaave. Finding in one of the wards in the hospital at Haarlem a number of women going into convulsions and imitating each other in various acts of frenzy, he immediately ordered a furnace of blazing coals into the midst of the ward, heated cauterizing irons, and declared that he would burn the arms of the first woman who fell into convulsions. No more cases occurred.
These and similar successful dealings of medical science with mental disease brought about the next stage in the theological development. The Church sought to retreat, after the usual manner, behind a compromise. Early in the eighteenth century appeared a new edition of the great work by the Jesuit Delrio which for a hundred years had been a text-book for the use of ecclesiastics in fighting witchcraft; but in this edition the part played by Satan in diseases was changed: it was suggested that, while diseases have natural causes, it is necessary that Satan enter the human body in order to make these causes effective. This work claims that Satan ``attacks lunatics at the full moon, when their brains are full of humours''; that in other cases of illness he ``stirs the black bile''; and that in cases of blindness and deafness he ``clogs the eyes and ears.'' By the close of the century this ``restatement'' was evidently found untenable, and one of a very different sort was attempted in England.
In the third edition of the Encyclopæ dia Britannica, published in 1797, under the article Dæ moniacs, the orthodox view was presented in the following words: ``The reality of demoniacal possession stands upon the same evidence with the gospel system in general.''
This statement, though necessary to satisfy the older theological sentiment, was clearly found too dangerous to be sent out into the modern sceptical world without some qualification. Another view was therefore suggested, namely, that the personages of the New Testament ``adopted the vulgar language in speaking of those unfortunate persons who were generally imagined to be possessed with demons.'' Two or three editions contained this curious compromise; but near the middle of the present century the whole discussion was quietly dropped.
Science, declining to trouble itself with any of these views, pressed on, and toward the end of the century we see Dr. Rhodes at Lyons curing a very serious case of possession by the use of a powerful emetic; yet myth-making came in here also, and it was stated that when the emetic produced its effect people had seen multitudes of green and yellow devils cast forth from the mouth of the possessed.
The last great demonstration of the old belief in England was made in 1788. Near the city of Bristol at that time lived a drunken epileptic, George Lukins. In asking alms, he insisted that he was ``possessed,'' and proved it by jumping, screaming, barking, and treating the company to a parody of the Te Deum.
He was solemnly brought into the Temple Church, and seven clergymen united in the effort to exorcise the evil spirit. Upon their adjuring Satan, he swore ``by his infernal den'' that he would not come out of the man - ``an oath,'' says the chronicler, ``nowhere to be found but in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, from which Lukins probably got it.''
But the seven clergymen were at last successful, and seven devils were cast out, after which Lukins retired, and appears to have been supported during the remainder of his life as a monument of mercy.
With this great effort the old theory in England seemed practically exhausted.
Science had evidently carried the stronghold. In 1876, at a little town near Amiens, in France, a young woman suffering with all the usual evidences of diabolic possession was brought to the priest. The priest was besought to cast out the devil, but he simply took her to the hospital, where, under scientific treatment, she rapidly became better.
The final triumph of science in this part of the great field has been mainly achieved during the latter half of the present century. Following in the noble succession of Paracelsus and John Hunter and Pinel and Tuke and Esquirol, have come a band of thinkers and workers who by scientific observation and research have developed new growths of truth, ever more and more precious.
Among the many facts thus brought to bear upon this last stronghold of the Prince of Darkness, may be named especially those indicating ``expectant attention'' - an expectation of phenomena dwelt upon until the longing for them becomes morbid and invincible, and the creation of them perhaps unconscious. Still other classes of phenomena leading to epidemics are found to arise from a morbid tendency to imitation. Still other groups have been brought under hypnotism. Multitudes more have been found under the innumerable forms and results of hysteria. A study of the effects of the imagination upon bodily functions has also yielded remarkable results.
And, finally, to supplement this work, have come in an array of scholars in history and literature who have investigated myth-making and wonder-mongering. Thus has been cleared away that cloud of supernaturalism which so long hung over mental diseases, and thus have they been brought within the firm grasp of science.
Conscientious men still linger on who find comfort in holding fast to some shred of the old belief in diabolic possession. The sturdy declaration in the last century by John Wesley, that ``giving up witchcraft is giving up the Bible,'' is echoed feebly in the latter half of this century by the eminent Catholic ecclesiastic in France who declares that ``to deny possession by devils is to charge Jesus and his apostles with imposture,'' and asks, ``How can the testimony of apostles, fathers of the Church, and saints who saw the possessed and so declared, be denied?'' And a still fainter echo lingers in Protestant England.
But, despite this conscientious opposition, science has in these latter days steadily wrought hand in hand with Christian charity in this field, to evolve a better future for humanity. The thoughtful physician and the devoted clergyman are now constantly seen working together; and it is not too much to expect that Satan, having been cast out of the insane asylums, will ere long disappear from monasteries and camp meetings, even in the most unenlightened regions of Christendom.
作者: 在美一方 时间: 11.3.2009 04:40
作者Andrew White是一个虔诚的基督徒，美国康奈尔大学的创始人之一并任第一任校长。一生反对教会干涉大学的教育和研究。
作者: 金宝 时间: 11.3.2009 06:00
作者Andrew White是一个虔诚的基督徒，美国康奈尔大学的创始人之一并任第一任校长。一生反对教会干涉大学的教育和研究。
在美一方 发表于 11.3.2009 04:40 
还是基督徒有宽容之心。
作者: 长白山 时间: 11.3.2009 10:11
谢谢蝴蝶的分享。
幸亏这些“魔鬼的手术”，幸亏基督教不能事事得逞。
作者: 金宝 时间: 11.3.2009 12:16
谢谢蝴蝶的分享。
幸亏这些“魔鬼的手术”，幸亏基督教不能事事得逞。
长白山 发表于 11.3.2009 10:11
嘿嘿，那天魔鬼给你做个手术，就不幸亏了。
作者: 长白山 时间: 11.3.2009 13:38
接种，牛痘，麻醉都经历过啊，真是幸亏得很。
很羡慕金宝你，老哥或老弟能够一直如此健康，神迹哦。
作者: 蝴蝶的语言 时间: 11.3.2009 16:08
3# 在美一方
谢谢老姐的补充哦！
作者: 蝴蝶的语言 时间: 11.3.2009 16:17
7# 长白山
是，昨天在网上看了关于Andrew Dickson White介绍之后，还和乡哥感叹半天呢，现在没网络可不行，在互联网这么发达的今天，某些领域真是让人受益匪浅呢。
作者: 在美一方 时间: 11.3.2009 16:40
10# 蝴蝶的语言
不客气，这是我06年最欣赏的一本书。
| 欢迎光临 德国开元华人社区 开元周游 (https://forum.kaiyuan.cn/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.2 |