leprosy he was discharged, after washing—that is, purifying— himself and his clothes.

But if the disease proved to be true leprosy, his isolation was continued for other seven days, and so on, alternated with weekly inspections, till the disease was cured. This law of separation was strict. Even Miriam and King Uzziah were not exempt. Leprous Priests were also forbidden, under penalty of being cut off from God's presence, to minister in holy things, or to eat the show-bread, or to sacrifice; and were deemed unclean like other Israelites. The rule that made everything which a leper touched unclean, and subject to similar treatment; and so in turn everything and person which these touched, made the company of an infected individual doubly undesirable, and his isolation all the more necessary, and likely to be strictly enforced by the people.

To still further lessen the chance of fresh infection, the leper's clothing, and also other garments which had become leprous, had likewise to be inspected by the priest and put in quarantine, unless decidedly infected, in which case they had to be burnt. Garment and house leprosy were evidently contagious and communicable to the human body. Otherwise, rules for crushing out the disease would have been unnecessary. When the latter was discovered, the house had to be inspected and shut up for seven days, at the end of which period leprous stones and mortar had to be replaced by fresh material. If the edifice was considered incurably leprous, the entire structure had to be broken down and the stones, timber, and mortar, carried into an unclean place out of the city. Even those who slept or ate in, or helped to clean a leprous house were deemed unclean and put for a time in quarantine. For still greater security, the cured person, after release from quarantine and reinspection by the priest, was not allowed to enter the camp till after he had washed his clothes and body, and shaved his hair. On the seventh day he had again to shave his head, beard, and eyebrows, and wash his body and clothing. After these processes of purification and disinfection he was considered clean, and might enter his tent. No violation or evasion of this law before again mixing with his fellow creatures was permitted. Again, to still further lessen the chance of the spread of con

tagion, the dead bodies of lepers were buried apart from others. Even leprous kings, like Uzziah, were not permitted to be laid in the royal sepulchres.

Regarded as a whole, these health laws, framed for the purpose of extinguishing or at least restricting the scourge of leprosy, are most complete, and included, first, perfect isolation of the sick person as well as his clothing, bedding, dwelling, and all belonging to him, from his family, friends, and the general public, until the disease had disappeared; second, thor ough purification of the infected individual before reëntering the camp, and even then a second minor quarantine of seven days; and third, disinfection by washing and otherwise cleansing his infected clothes and dwelling before again making use of them, and if necessary the destruction of the former by fire.

A more complete or effective method of separation from the healthy community, of infected persons and things, and of every person and article which became infected by touch or proximity to these, could not be devised to prevent the spread of contagion. Modern hygiene may in some minor respects be theoretically, but certainly it is not practically in advance of this ancient Israelitish code, primitive in time but not in practice. And if our present systems of quarantine by land and sea, and of isolation of infected or suspected persons, and also of purification or destruction of their clothing, effects, dwelling and so forth, were as perfect as this; the infectious and contagious class of diseases that so often decimate communities at the present day, would soon be completely stamped out. If, for example, every case of small-pox were at once and thoroughly isolated, and kept thus till all chance of infection had passed away, while the clothes, bedding, effects, dwelling, and sickroom were also efficiently washed, cleansed, disinfected, and if necessary destroyed by fire, the disease would have no chance of spreading, and thus would soon disappear, or at least become so rare as to be a curiosity. And so also of scarlatina, measles, and other epidemic diseases.

The equally minute and stringent rules laid down in the Pentateuch to ensure cleanliness of the Israelitish camp, and subsequently of their cities, a matter of first importance in the prevention or diminution of leprosy and other contagious dis

eases, are equally comprehensive and judicious. Dirt was not allowed to accumulate in their tents, but was deposited well beyond the camp, and there decomposed and destroyed by being covered with earth, one of the best of disinfectants and deodorants. So also after making burnt offerings, the Priests had to put off their official garments, put on others, and then carry the ashes of the sacrifice and also the unburnt flesh, hide, and refuse of the animal outside the camp, and there burn them. No surer method could have been devised to effect the main objects in view, namely, the prevention of air-pollution and the spread of disease thereby, than the immediate and complete removal and destruction of offensive matter of this kind.

The high standard of health attained by the Israelites in the wilderness was doubtless in great measure due to their admirable public hygiene. Were our modern systems as perfect and as strictly enforced, a similar comparative immunity from disease would necessarily be enjoyed by ourselves. Hygienic science, after emerging from the dark ages, has not yet advanced to the high perfection it had attained in the days of Moses. Compared with that of modern times, the completeness and efficiency of the Hebrew Code are remarkable. Had a physician of the last century planned a sanitary code like this, so simple yet ample, far-seeing, and efficacious, he would have been immortalized and deemed a leader of men, a giant intellect far in advance of his age. What therefore is to be thought of Moses, who dictated such masterly laws in a profession to which he did not belong, more than three thousand years ago, when the rudimentary science of Egypt, doubtless the cradle of medicine and the source from whence the Jews, Greeks, Romans and other early nations derived their knowledge, was founded on incantations and astrology, the body being divided into thirty-six parts, each of which was entrusted to a demon whose aid it was the duty of the physician to invoke?

Surrounded by, and therefore apt to be imbued with theories so absurd and a practice so illogical and uncertain as those which then prevailed; whence did this pioneer Hygiest derive the acumen or procure the information to devise a sanitary

system so practical, complete, and not only so much in advance of the medical science of that early period, but even in some respects so superior to that of modern times, that the light from this lofty beacon coming from the midst of the comparative darkness of the past, illuminates and helps to confirm and even promote the knowledge of the present; so that medical savans may still sit with advantage at the feet of Moses, and learn not only the great base facts, but even many of the minu tiæ of the art and science which they study? How is the advanced thinking of the great Jewish lawgiver to be ac counted for? Was it of human or divine origin?

We shall not enter for the present into this question. But certainly, leaving other sciences to look after themselves, it cannot be denied that in this instance at least, Scripture and science harmonize; that recent research, instead of refuting only establishes the medical philosophy of the Bible; and that our modern is materially indebted to the ancient hygiene of the Israelites, seeing that both the private and the public sanitation of the present day has been and might have been still further advanced and more perfect than they now are, had our ancestors studied the rules that have lain unused for centuries, though doubtless meant as much for mankind as for the chosen people to whom we owe not only their preservation, but also abundant proof of their efficacy.

ARTICLE III-JOHN STUART MILL.*

II.

UPON the table at which we are writing lies a small piece of Italian marble which serves for a paper-weight. It is about two inches square at each surface, white in color, weighs five or six ounces, yields readily to a push, but not to compression, or to a pull, but not to torsion, and emits a dull sound when struck. To these obvious phenomena scientific tests would add others imperceptible to ordinary sensation, electrical and magnetic sympathies and antipathies, reactions upon chemical agents and the motions of the æthereal medium. If we had other senses and were able to widen the range of them by other scientific artifices no doubt other more recondite phenomena would emerge from behind all these. An area of indefinite, perhaps of infinite possibility surrounds the paper-weight. It is a center visited by all the forces of nature and with an articulate answer ready for any signal nature knows how to make it. The only limit we can assign to its susceptibilities is the unknown limit to the activities of the universe. Clearly to call the thing a paperweight is not to give a name descriptive of real character, but a nickname suggested by the paltry single use we put it to. Collecting the particulars enumerated, and letting a stand for all the unknown particulars, we get the statement that the paper-weight, which we will call A, is extended, colored, impenetrable, cohesive, heavy, mobile, resonant, and x.

Is the statement an identical or a synthetical proposition? All metaphysics is shut up in this question like the cloudy genius in the fisherman's casket. Do we affirm that the paperweight consists of the phenomena enumerated and unenumerated, is constituted by them and by nothing beyond them? This is what we seem to say. The form is unmistakably the form of the identical proposition; it is down in black and white that A is extended. . . . and x, that is that these particular appearan ces of extension, solidity, resonance, and the rest make A what

* Continued from January Number. To be completed in a third paper.