The mathematical investigations on the subject of the ark, begun by Origen (F/omily 2 on Gen.), its dimen- sions and cubical capacity (Lamy, De Tahernac.foed.Tp. 170 sq. ; Buteo and Hostus, in the Critici Sacri, vi, 83 sq. ; Silberschlag, Geoc/onie, ii, ch. 3 ; Donat, in Scheuch- zer's Phi/s. Sacra, i, 128 sq.; Heidegger, Hist. Patriarch. I, 491 sq. ; Wideburg, Mat lies. Bibl. i, 59 sq. ; Schmidt, Bibl. Mathemat. p. 280 sq.), have not been productive of satisfactory results (see Cramer, in his Scytli. Denlcmdl. p. 27G sq. ; Blomdahl, De cowiregatione animal, in arcam [Gryph. 1785] ; Otho, Lex. Rabb. p. 461), owing chiefly to the uncertainty of the Hebrew measurements (see The- nius, Althebr. Maasse, p. 213 sq.). Yet a strange fancy on the subject may be seen in the Theol. Annal. for 1809, p. 307. The general tradition of antiquity was that its remains were preserved on the Kurdish mountains (Be- rosus in Josephus, Ant. i, 3, 6; Ajrion, i, 19 ; comp. Ant, XX, 2, 3). — Winer, ii, 165. See Ararat.
The subject of Noah's ark has been found in some very interesting traditions represented on medals of an- tiquity, especially those of Apamea, in Phrygia, and these have in some unknown way been associated with the early Christian memorials. See Apamea; Ark; Numismatics.
Noah's Ark, from the Catacombs of Rome.
Noailles, Louis Antoine de, a Roman Catholic prelate of great note in French ecclesiastical affairs, was born May 27, 1651. Having entered the Church at an early age, he was, while quite young, made abbot of Aubrac; in 1675 he became D.D. ; bishop of Cahors in 1679; of Chalons in 1680; and finally archbishop of Paris in 1695. At the beginning of the Quietist difficulties he interfered as mediator between Bossuet and Fenelon, against both of whom he wrote subsequently. In 1700 he was appointed cardinal, through the influence of Louis XIY. While yet bishop of Chalons, he had ap- proved the Reflexions morales with which Quesnel had prefaced his edition of the N. T. (1693) ; tliis turned out a source of many annoyances to him afterwards, the more so as he subsequently condemned the Exposition de la Foi of the abbe de Barcos, another Jansenist work — thus rejecting what he had formerly commended. He after- wards led the other bishops in protesting against the bull Unigeuitus, and became one of the most ardent
NOAILLES
148
NO-AMOX
friends of the Jansenists, The Jesuits immediately set iu motion all tlieir influence to have Noailles brought to condign punishment. The object they had at heart ■was to secure the blind acceptation of the pope's bull and the degradation of the prelates who had ventured on demurring; and they induced pope Clement XI to address a brief to cardinal Noailles in April, 1714, summoning him to accept the bull within fifteen days, purely and simply and without comment ; after the lapse of which term, if still refractory, the pope declared that " he would strip him of the dignity of cardinal." Louis XIV, though in favor of the acceptation of the bull, yet resented this threatened exercise of the pope's author- ity against the archbishop of Paris, and would not per- mit the brief to have public course. This, however, did not quash the dispute, which became more and more envenomed; until, in November, 171G, the pope coerced the cardinals into subscribing a letter he had himself drawn up, whereby they professed to exhort their colleague Noailles to submit, and which was ac- companied by a brief directed to the regent Orleans, wherein the pope declared that if this appeal were dis- regarded no further mercy could be expected. This brief the clergy were inliibited by royal veto from re- ceiving; and in March, 1717, four bishops lodged with the Sorbonne a formal appeal, in the matter of the bull Unigenitus, to a future general council, and this appeal cardinal Noailles approved as quite canonical, although he himself still abstained from the same step. But when it seemed certain that in Rome the proceeding of the bishops was about to be censured, Noailles himself lodged, though for a time secretly, a similar appeal to the pope, melius informandus, and to a general council, in the matter of the bull, and of the pope's refusal to explain it. Manifestly here was an act of possibly very deferential, but decidedly very distinct resistance to the will of the pope, who was on his part little disposed to put up with it. Agents were now despatched to and fro between Paris and Rome, but no form of explanation which Noailles could suggest found acceptance with the pope ; and at last, on March 3, 1718, there appeared a de- cree of the Holy Office condemning severely the appeal of the four bishops and of cardinal Noailles, This was followed up by tidings of the imminent issue of a brief pronoimcing those scliismatics who did not accept the buU simply and purely; whereupon Noailles, to have the start of the pope, convened a general assembly of the chapter of Notre Dame, to whom he made public his appeal, which next day was stuck against the church- doors in his diocese. This led to a furious decree of the Inquisition, Aug. 12, 1719, against the cardinal, and, as Dorsanne would have us believe, the pope's mind was now firmly set on the project of stripping No- ailles of his red hat. Yet, with all the passions excited against the recalcitrant obstinacy of the French prelate in refusing to accept papal dictation implicith-, it would appear as if the desire to wreak the uttermost ven- geance on his head was arrested by the sense of the practical difficulties that stood in the way of its ac- complishment. In spite of the pope's animositj' and the fanning action of the Jesuits, it was found (lesira- ble to let the matter drop. Cardinal Noailles, though censured and fulminated against, escaped further perse- cution, and continued archbishop of Paris to his death, before which he had reconciled himself with his adver- saries by a compromise due mainly to the regent Or- leans's influence. Noailles accepted the bull Unigenitus Oct, 11, 1728. AV'hile his actions in this case may have been consistent, his whole life may be said to have been checkered considerably by a most inconsistent course. He was for a time a Jansenist, or at least a most ardent supporter of that sect. Placed in positions of trust, and endangered in these by opposition from Rome and the Jesuits, lie wavered frequently in his tasks, and would only go fonvard when assured of the protection of the court, or those in influence there. Thus, in 1709, car- dinal Noailles gave his consent to the suppression of the