byThomasHenryHuxleyTherearethreewaysofregardinganyaccountofpastoccurrences，whetherdeliveredtousorallyorrecordedinwriting。
Thenarrativemaybeexactlytrue。Thatistosay，thewords，takenintheirnaturalsense，andinterpretedaccordingtotherulesofgrammar，mayconveytothemindofthehearer，orofthereaderanideapreciselycorrespondentwithonewhichwouldhaveremainedinthemindofawitness。Forexample，thestatementthatKingCharlestheFirstwasbeheadedatWhitehallonthe30thdayofJanuary1649，isasexactlytrueasanypropositioninmathematicsorphysics；noonedoubtsthatanypersonofsoundfaculties，properlyplaced，whowaspresentatWhitehallthroughoutthatday，andwhousedhiseyes，wouldhaveseentheKing’sheadcutoff；andthattherewouldhaveremainedinhismindanideaofthatoccurrencewhichhewouldhaveputintowordsofthesamevalueasthosewhichweusetoexpressit。
Orthenarrativemaybepartlytrueandpartlyfalse。Thus，somehistoriesofthetimetelluswhattheKingsaid，andwhatBishopJuxonsaid；orreportroyalistconspiraciestoeffectarescue；ordetailthemotiveswhichinducedthechiefsoftheCommonwealthtoresolvethattheKingshoulddie。OneaccountdeclaresthattheKingkneltatahighblock，anotherthathelaydownwithhisneckonamereplank。Andtherearecontemporarypictorialrepresentationsofboththesemodesofprocedure。Suchnarratives，whileveraciousastothemainevent，mayanddoexhibitvariousdegreesofunconsciousandconsciousmisrepresentation，suppression，andinvention，tilltheybecomehardlydistinguishablefrompurefictions。
Thus，theypresentatransitiontonarrativesofathirdclass，inwhichthefictitiouselementpredominates。Here，again，thereareallimaginablegradations，fromsuchworksasDefoe’squasi—
historicalaccountofthePlagueyear，whichprobablygivesatruerconceptionofthatdreadfultimethananyauthentichistory，throughthehistoricalnovel，drama，andepic，tothepurelyphantasmalcreationsofimaginativegenius，suchastheold"ArabianNights"orthemodern"ShavingofShagpat。"ItisnotstrictlyneedfulformypresentpurposethatIshouldsayanythingaboutnarrativeswhichareprofessedlyfictitious。
Yetitmaybewell，perhaps，ifIdisclaimanyintentionofderogatingfromtheirvalue，whenIinsistupontheparamountnecessityofrecollectingthatthereisnosortofrelationbetweentheethical，ortheaesthetic，oreventhescientificimportanceofsuchworks，andtheirworthashistoricaldocuments。Unquestionably，tothepoeticartist，oreventothestudentofpsychology，"Hamlet"and"Macbeth"maybebetterinstructorsthanallthebooksofawildernessofprofessorsofaestheticsorofmoralphilosophy。But，asevidenceofoccurrencesinDenmark，orinScotland，atthetimesandplacesindicated，theyareoutofcourt；theprofoundestadmirationforthem，thedeepestgratitudefortheirinfluence，areconsistentwiththeknowledgethat，historicallyspeaking，theyareworthlessfables，inwhichanyfoundationofrealitythatmayexistissubmergedbeneaththeimaginativesuperstructure。
Atpresent，however，Iamnotconcernedtodwellupontheimportanceoffictitiousliteratureandtheimmensityoftheworkwhichithaseffectedintheeducationofthehumanrace。
Iproposetodealwiththemuchmorelimitedinquiry:Aretheretwootherclassesofconsecutivenarratives（asdistinctfromstatementsofindividualfacts），oronlyone？Isthereanyknownhistoricalworkwhichisthroughoutexactlytrue，oristherenot？Inthecaseofthegreatmajorityofhistoriestheanswerisnotdoubtful:theyareallonlypartiallytrue。EventhosevenerableworkswhichbearthenamesofsomeofthegreatestofancientGreekandRomanwriters，andwhichhavebeenacceptedbygenerationaftergeneration，downtomoderntimes，asstoriesofunquestionabletruth，havebeencompelledbyscientificcriticism，afteralongbattle，todescendtothecommonlevel，andtoconfessiontoalargeadmixtureoferror。Imightfairlytakethisforgranted；butitmaybewellthatIshouldentrenchmyselfbehindtheveryappositewordsofahistoricalauthoritywhoiscertainlynotobnoxioustoevenasuspicionofscepticaltendencies。
Timewas——andthatnotverylongago——whenalltherelationsofancientauthorsconcerningtheoldworldwerereceivedwithareadybelief；andanunreasoninganduncriticalfaithacceptedwithequalsatisfactionthenarrativeofthecampaignsofCaesarandofthedoingsofRomulus，theaccountofAlexander’smarchesandoftheconquestsofSemiramis。Wecanmostofusrememberwhen，inthiscountry，thewholestoryofregalRome，andeventhelegendoftheTrojansettlementinLatium，wereseriouslyplacedbeforeboysashistory，anddiscoursedofasunhesitatinglyandinasdogmaticatoneasthetaleoftheCatillineConspiracyortheConquestofBritain……
Butallthisisnowchanged。Thelastcenturyhasseenthebirthandgrowthofanewscience——theScienceofHistoricalCriticism……Thewholeworldofprofanehistoryhasbeenrevolutionised……
IftheseutterancesweretruewhentheyfellfromthelipsofaBamptonlecturerin1859，withhowmuchgreaterforcedotheyappealtousnow，whentheimmenselaboursofthegenerationnowpassingawayconstituteonevastillustrationofthepowerandfruitfulnessofscientificmethodsofinvestigationinhistory，nolessthaninallotherdepartmentsofknowledge。
Atthepresenttime，Isuppose，thereisnoonewhodoubtsthathistorieswhichappertaintoanyotherpeoplethantheJews，andtheirspiritualprogenyinthefirstcentury，fallwithinthesecondclassofthethreeenumerated。LikeGoethe’sAutobiography，theymightallbeentitled"WahrheitundDichtung"——"TruthandFiction。"Theproportionofthetwoconstituentschangesindefinitely；andthequalityofthefictionvariesthroughthewholegamutofunveracity。
But"Dichtung"isalwaysthere。Forthemostacuteandlearnedofhistorianscannotremedytheimperfectionsofhissourcesofinformation；norcanthemostimpartialwhollyescapetheinfluenceofthe"personalequation"generatedbyhistemperamentandbyhiseducation。Therefore，fromthenarrativesofHerodotustothosesetforthinyesterday’s"Times，"allhistoryistobereadsubjecttothewarningthatfictionhasitssharetherein。Themodernvastdevelopmentoffugitiveliteraturecannotbetheunmitigatedevilthatsomedovainlysayitis，sinceithasputanendtothepopulardelusionoflesspress—riddentimes，thatwhatappearsinprintmustbetrue。Weshouldratherhopethatsomebeneficentinfluencemaycreateamongtheeruditealikehealthysuspicionofmanuscriptsandinscriptions，howeverancient；forabulletinmaylie，eventhoughitbewrittenincuneiformcharacters。
Hotspur’sstarling，thatwastobetaughttospeaknothingbut"Mortimer"intotheearsofKingHenrytheFourth，mightbeausefulinmateofeveryhistorian’slibrary，if"Fiction"weresubstitutedforthenameofHarryPercy’sfriend。
ButitwasthechiefobjectofthelecturertothecongregationgatheredinSt。Mary’s，Oxford，thirty—oneyearsago，toprovetothem，byevidencegatheredwithnolittlelabourandmarshalledwithmuchskill，thatonegroupofhistoricalworkswasexemptfromthegeneralrule；andthatthenarrativescontainedinthecanonicalScripturesarefreefromanyadmixtureoferror。Withjusticeandcandour，thelecturerimpressesuponhishearersthatthespecialdistinctionofChristianity，amongthereligionsoftheworld，liesinitsclaimtobehistorical；tobesurelyfoundeduponeventswhichhavehappened，exactlyastheyaredeclaredtohavehappenedinitssacredbooks；whicharetrue，thatis，inthesensethatthestatementabouttheexecutionofCharlestheFirstistrue。
Further，itisaffirmedthattheNewTestamentpresupposesthehistoricalexactnessoftheOldTestament；thatthepointsofcontactof"sacred"and"profane"historyareinnumerable；
andthatthedemonstrationofthefalsityoftheHebrewrecords，especiallyinregardtothosenarrativeswhichareassumedtobetrueintheNewTestament，wouldbefataltoChristiantheology。
Myutmostingenuitydoesnotenablemetodiscoveraflawintheargumentthusbrieflysummarised。Iamfairlyatalosstocomprehendhowanyone，foramoment，candoubtthatChristiantheologymuststandorfallwiththehistoricaltrustworthinessoftheJewishScriptures。TheveryconceptionoftheMessiah，orChrist，isinextricablyinterwovenwithJewishhistory；theidentificationofJesusofNazarethwiththatMessiahrestsupontheinterpretationofpassagesoftheHebrewScriptureswhichhavenoevidentialvalueunlesstheypossessthehistoricalcharacterassignedtothem。IfthecovenantwithAbrahamwasnotmade；ifcircumcisionandsacrificeswerenotordainedbyJahveh；ifthe"tenwords"werenotwrittenbyGod’shandonthestonetables；ifAbrahamismoreorlessamythicalhero，suchasTheseus；thestoryoftheDelugeafiction；thatoftheFallalegend；andthatofthecreationthedreamofaseer；ifallthesedefiniteanddetailednarrativesofapparentlyrealeventshavenomorevalueashistorythanhavethestoriesoftheregalperiodofRome——whatistobesaidabouttheMessianicdoctrine，whichissomuchlessclearlyenunciated？AndwhatabouttheauthorityofthewritersofthebooksoftheNewTestament，who，onthistheory，havenotmerelyacceptedflimsyfictionsforsolidtruths，buthavebuilttheveryfoundationsofChristiandogmauponlegendaryquicksands？
Butthesemaybesaidtobemerelythecarpingsofthatcarnalreasonwhichtheprofanecallcommonsense；Ihasten，therefore，tobringuptheforcesofunimpeachableecclesiasticalauthorityinsupportofmyposition。InasermonpreachedlastDecember，inSt。Paul’sCathedral，CanonLiddondeclares:——
ForChristiansitwillbeenoughtoknowthatourLordJesusChristsetthesealofHisinfalliblesanctiononthewholeoftheOldTestament。HefoundtheHebrewcanonaswehaveitinourhandsto—day，andHetreateditasanauthoritywhichwasabovediscussion。Naymore:HewentoutofHisway——ifwemayreverentlyspeakthus——tosanctionnotafewportionsofitwhichmodernscepticismrejects。WhenHewouldwarnHishearersagainstthedangersofspiritualrelapse，Hebidsthemremember"Lot’swife。"WhenHewouldpointouthowworldlyengagementsmayblindthesoultoacomingjudgment，Heremindsthemhowmenate，anddrank，andmarried，andweregiveninmarriage，untilthedaythatNoahenteredintotheark，andtheFloodcameanddestroyedthemall。IfHewouldputHisfingeronafactinpastJewishhistorywhich，byitsadmittedreality，wouldwarrantbeliefinHisowncomingResurrection，HepointstoJonah’sbeingthreedaysandthreenightsinthewhale’sbelly（p。23）。"
Thepreacherproceedstobrushasidethecommon——Ihadalmostsaidvulgar——apologeticpretextthatJesuswasusingadhominemarguments，or"accommodating"hisbetterknowledgetopopularignorance，aswellastopointouttheinadmissibilityoftheotheralternative，thathesharedthepopularignorance。Andtothosewhoholdthelatterviewsarcasmisdealtoutwithnoniggardhand。
Buttheywillfinditdifficulttopersuademankindthat，ifHecouldbemistakenonamatterofsuchstrictlyreligiousimportanceasthevalueofthesacredliteratureofHiscountrymen，Hecanbesafelytrustedaboutanythingelse。ThetrustworthinessoftheOldTestamentis，infact，inseparablefromthetrustworthinessofourLordJesusChrist；andifwebelievethatHeisthetrueLightoftheworld，weshallcloseourearsagainstsuggestionsimpairingthecreditofthoseJewishScriptureswhichhavereceivedthestampofHisDivineauthority"（p。25）。
Moreover，Ilearnfromthepublicjournalsthatabrilliantandsharply—cutviewoforthodoxy，oflikehueandpattern，wasonlytheotherdayexhibitedinthatgreattheologicalkaleidoscope，thepulpitofSt。Mary’s，recallingthetimesolongpassedby，whenaBamptonlecturer，inthesameplace，performedtheunusualfeatofleavingthefaithofold—fashionedChristiansundisturbed。
Yetmanythingshavehappenedintheinterveningthirty—oneyears。TheBamptonlecturerof1859hadtograppleonlywiththeinfantHerculesofhistoricalcriticism；andheisnowafull—
grownathlete，bearingonhisshouldersthespoilsofallthelionsthathavestoodinhispath。Surelyamartyr’scourage，aswellasamartyr’sfaith，isneededbyanyonewho，atthistime，ispreparedtostandbythefollowingpleafortheveracityofthePentateuch:——
Adam，accordingtotheHebreworiginal，wasfor243yearscontemporarywithMethuselah，whoconversedforahundredyearswithShem。ShemwasforfiftyyearscontemporarywithJacob，whoprobablysawJochebed，Moses’smother。Thus，MosesmightbyoraltraditionhaveobtainedthehistoryofAbraham，andevenoftheDeluge，atthirdhand；andthatoftheTemptationandtheFallatfifthhand……
Ifitbegranted——asitseemstobe——thatthegreatandstirringeventsinanation’slifewill，underordinarycircumstances，beremembered（apartfromallwrittenmemorials）forthespaceof150years，beinghandeddownthroughfivegenerations，itmustbeallowed（evenonmorehumangrounds）thattheaccountwhichMosesgivesoftheTemptationandtheFallistobedependedupon，ifitpassedthroughnomorethanfourhandsbetweenhimandAdam。
If"thetrustworthinessofourLordJesusChrist"istostandorfallwiththebeliefinthesuddentransmutationofthechemicalcomponentsofawoman’sbodyintosodiumchloride，oronthe"admittedreality"ofJonah’sejection，safeandsound，ontheshoresoftheLevant，afterthreedays’sea—journeyinthestomachofagiganticmarineanimal，whatpossiblepretextcantherebeforevenhintingadoubtastotheprecisetruthofthelongevityattributedtothePatriarchs？WhothathasswallowedthecamelofJonah’sjourneywillbeguiltyoftheaffectationofstrainingatsuchahistoricalgnat——nay，midge——asthesuppositionthatthemotherofMoseswastoldthestoryoftheFloodbyJacob；whohaditstraightfromShem；whowasonfriendlytermswithMethuselah；whoknewAdamquitewell？
Yet，bythestrangeironyofthings，theillustriousbrotherofthedivinewhopropoundedthisremarkabletheory，hasbeentheguideandforemostworkerofthatbandofinvestigatorsoftherecordsofAssyriaandofBabylonia，whohaveopenedtoourview，notmerelyanewchapter，butanewvolumeofprimevalhistory，relatingtotheverypeoplewhohavethemostnumerouspointsofcontactwiththelifeoftheancientHebrews。
Now，whateverimperfectionsmayyetobscurethefullvalueoftheMesopotamianrecords，everythingthathasbeenclearlyascertainedtendstotheconclusionthattheassignmentofnomorethan4000yearstotheperiodbetweenthetimeoftheoriginofmankindandthatofAugustusCaesar，iswhollyinadmissible。ThereforetheBiblicalchronology，whichCanonRawlinsontrustedsoimplicitlyin1859，isrelegatedbyallseriouscriticstothedomainoffable。
Butifscientificmethod，operatingintheregionofhistory，ofphilology，ofarchaeology，inthecourseofthelastthirtyorfortyyears，hasbecomethusformidabletothetheologicaldogmatist，whatmaynotbesaidaboutscientificmethodworkingintheprovinceofphysicalscience？For，ifitbetruethattheCanonicalScriptureshaveinnumerablepointsofcontactwithcivilhistory，itisnolesstruethattheyhavealmostasmanywithnaturalhistory；andtheiraccuracyisputtothetestasseverelybythelatterasbytheformer。Theoriginofthepresentstateoftheheavensandtheearthisaproblemwhichliesstrictlywithintheprovinceofphysicalscience；soisthatoftheoriginofmanamonglivingthings；soisthatofthephysicalchangeswhichtheearthhasundergonesincetheoriginofman；soisthatoftheoriginofthevariousracesandnationsofmen，withalltheirvarietiesoflanguageandphysicalconformation。Whethertheearthmovesroundthesunorthecontrary；whetherthebodilyandmentaldiseasesofmenandanimalsarecausedbyevilspiritsornot；whetherthereissuchanagencyaswitchcraftornot——allthesearepurelyscientificquestions；andtoallofthemtheCanonicalScripturesprofesstogivetrueanswers。Andthoughnothingismorecommonthantheassumptionthatthesebookscomeintoconflictonlywiththespeculativepartofmodernphysicalscience，noassumptioncanhavelessfoundation。
TheantagonismbetweennaturalknowledgeandthePentateuchwouldbeasgreatifthespeculationsofourtimehadneverbeenheardof。Itarisesoutofcontradictionuponmattersoffact。
Thebooksofecclesiasticalauthoritydeclarethatcertaineventshappenedinacertainfashion；thebooksofscientificauthoritysaytheydidnot。Asitseemsthatthisunquestionabletruthhasnotyetpenetratedamongmanyofthosewhospeakandwriteonthesesubjects，itmaybeusefultogiveafullillustrationofit。AndforthatpurposeIproposetodeal，atsomelength，withthenarrativeoftheNoachianDelugegiveninGenesis。
TheBamptonlecturerin1859，andtheCanonofSt。Paul’sin1890，areinfullagreementthatthishistoryistrue，inthesenseinwhichIhavedefinedhistoricaltruth。TheformerisofopinionthattheaccountattributedtoBerosusrecordsatradition——
notdrawnfromtheHebrewrecord，muchlessthefoundationofthatrecord；yetcoincidingwithitinthemostremarkableway。
TheBabylonianversionistrickedoutwithafewextravagances，asthemonstroussizeofthevesselandthetranslationofXisuthros；butotherwiseitistheHebrewhistorydowntoitsminutiae。（p。64）。
Moreover，correctingNiebuhr，theBamptonlecturerpointsoutthatthenarrativeofBerosusimpliestheuniversalityoftheFlood。
ItisplainthatthewatersarerepresentedasprevailingabovethetopsoftheloftiestmountainsinArmenia——aheightwhichmusthavebeenseentoinvolvethesubmersionofallthecountrieswithwhichtheBabylonianswereacquainted（p。66）。
Imayremark，inpassing，thatmanypeoplethinkthesizeofNoah’sark"monstrous，"consideringtheprobablestateoftheartofshipbuildingonly1600yearsaftertheoriginofman；
whileothersaresounreasonableastoinquirewhythetranslationofEnochislessan"extravagance"thanthatofXisuthros。Itismoreimportant，however，tonotethattheUniversalityoftheDelugeisrecognised，notmerelyasapartofthestory，butasanecessaryconsequenceofsomeofitsdetails。ThelatestexponentofAnglicanorthodoxy，aswehaveseen，insistsupontheaccuracyofthePentateuchalhistoryoftheFloodinastillmoreforciblemanner。ItiscitedasoneofthoseverynarrativestowhichtheauthorityoftheFounderofChristianityispledged，andupontheaccuracyofwhich"thetrustworthinessofourLordJesusChrist"isstaked，justasothershavestakedituponthetruthofthehistoriesofdemoniacpossessionintheGospels。
Now，whenthosewhoputtheirtrustinscientificmethodsofascertainingthetruthintheprovinceofnaturalhistoryfindthemselvesconfrontedandopposed，ontheirownground，byecclesiasticalpretensionstobetterknowledge，itis，undoubtedly，mostdesirableforthemtomakesurethattheirconclusions，whatevertheymaybe，arewellfounded。And，iftheyputasidetheunauthorisedinterferencewiththeirbusinessandrelegatethePentateuchalhistorytotheregionofpurefiction，theyareboundtoassurethemselvesthattheydosobecausetheplainestteachingsofNature（apartfromalldoubtfulspeculations）areirreconcilablewiththeassertionswhichtheyreject。
Atthepresenttime，itisdifficulttopersuadeseriousscientificinquirerstooccupythemselves，inanyway，withtheNoachianDeluge。Theylookatyouwithasmileandashrug，andsaytheyhavemoreimportantmatterstoattendtothanmereantiquarianism。Butitwasnotsoinmyyouth。Atthattime，geologistsandbiologistscouldhardlyfollowtotheendanypathofinquirywithoutfindingthewayblockedbyNoahandhisark，orbythefirstchapterofGenesis；anditwasaseriousmatter，inthiscountryatanyrate，foramantobesuspectedofdoubtingtheliteraltruthoftheDiluvialoranyotherPentateuchalhistory。ThefiftiethanniversaryofthefoundationoftheGeologicalClub（in1824）was，ifIrememberrightly，thelastoccasiononwhichthelateSirCharlesLyellspoketoevensosmallapublicasthemembersofthatbody。Ourveteranleaderlighteduponcemore；and，referringtothedifficultieswhichbesethisearlyeffortstocreatearationalscienceofgeology，spoke，withhiswontedclearnessandvigour，ofthesocialostracismwhichpursuedhimafterthepublicationofthe"PrinciplesofGeology，"in1830，onaccountoftheobvioustendencyofthatnobleworktodiscreditthePentateuchalaccountsoftheCreationandtheDeluge。Ifmyyoungercontemporariesfindthishardtobelieve，Imayreferthemtoagravebook，"OntheDoctrineoftheDeluge，"publishedeightyearslater，anddedicatedbyitsauthortohisfather，thethenArchbishopofYork。Thefirstchapterreferstothetreatmentofthe"MosaicDeluge，"byDr。BucklandandMr。Lyell，inthefollowingterms:
TheirrespectforrevealedreligionhaspreventedthemfromarrayingthemselvesopenlyagainsttheScripturalaccountofit——muchlessdotheydenyitstruth——buttheyareinagreathurrytoescapefromtheconsiderationofit，andevidentlyconcurintheopinionofLinnaeus，thatnoproofswhateveroftheDelugearetobediscoveredinthestructureoftheearth（p。1）。
AndafteranattempttoreplytosomeofLyell’sarguments，whichitwouldbecrueltoreproduce，thewritercontinues:——
When，therefore，uponsuchslendergrounds，itisdetermined，inanswertothosewhoinsistuponitsuniversality，thattheMosaicDelugemustbeconsideredapreternaturalevent，farbeyondthereachofphilosophicalinquiry；notonlyastothecausesemployedtoproduceit，butastotheeffectsmostlikelytoresultfromit；thatdeterminationwearsanaspectofscepticism，which，howevermuchsoeveritmaybeunintentionalinthemindofthewriter，yetcannotbutproduceanevilimpressiononthosewhoarealreadypredisposedtocarpandcavilattheevidencesofRevelation（pp。8—9）。
Thekindlyandcourteouswriterofthesecuriouspassagesisevidentlyunwillingtomakethegeologiststhevictimsofgeneralopprobriumbypressingtheobviousconsequencesoftheirteachinghome。Oneisthereforepainedtothinkofthefeelingswithwhich，ifhelivedsolongastobecomeacquaintedwiththe"DictionaryoftheBible，"hemusthaveperusedthearticle"Noah，"writtenbyadignitaryoftheChurchforthatstandardcompendiumandpublishedin1863。ForthedoctrineoftheuniversalityoftheDelugeisthereinaltogethergivenup；andI
permitmyselftohopethatalongcriticismofthestoryfromthepointofviewofnaturalscience，withwhich，attherequestofthelearnedtheologianwhowroteit，Isuppliedhim，may，insomedegree，havecontributedtowardsthishappyresult。
Notwithstandingdiligentsearch，IhavebeenunabletodiscoverthattheuniversalityoftheDelugehasanydefenderleft，atleastamongthosewhohavesofarmasteredtherudimentsofnaturalknowledgeastobeabletoappreciatetheweightofevidenceagainstit。Forexample，whenIturnedtothe"Speaker’sBible，"publishedunderthesanctionofhighAnglicanauthority，Ifoundthefollowingjudicialandjudiciousdeliverance，theskilfulwordingofwhichmayadorn，butdoesnothide，thecompletenessofthesurrenderoftheoldteaching:——
WithoutpronouncingtoohastilyonanyfairinferencesfromthewordsofScripture，wemayreasonablysaythattheirmostnaturalinterpretationis，thatthewholeraceofmanhadbecomegrievouslycorruptedsincethefaithfulhadintermingledwiththeungodly；thattheinhabitedworldwasconsequentlyfilledwithviolence，andthatGodhaddecreedtodestroyallmankindexceptonesinglefamily；that，therefore，allthatportionoftheearth，perhapsasyetaverysmallportion，intowhichmankindhadspreadwasoverwhelmedwithwater。Thearkwasordainedtosaveonefaithfulfamily；andlestthatfamily，onthesubsidenceofthewaters，shouldfindthewholecountryroundthemadesert，apairofallthebeastsofthelandandofthefowlsoftheairwerepreservedalongwiththem，andalongwiththemwentforthtoreplenishthenowdesolatedcontinent。
ThewordsofScripture（confirmedastheyarebyuniversaltradition）appearatleasttomeanasmuchasthis。Theydonotnecessarilymeanmore。
InthethirdeditionofKitto’s"CyclopaediaofBiblicalLiterature"（1876），thearticle"Deluge，"writtenbymyfriend，thepresentdistinguishedheadoftheGeologicalSurveyofGreatBritain，extinguishestheuniversalitydoctrineasthoroughlyasmightbeexpectedfromitsauthorship；and，sincethewriterofthearticle"Noah"refershisreaderstothatentitled"Deluge，"
itistobesupposed，notwithstandinghisgenerallyorthodoxtone，thathedoesnotdissentfromitsconclusions。Again，thewritersinHerzog’s"Real—Encyclopadie"（Bd。X。1882）andinRiehm’s"Handworterbuch"（1884）——bothworkswithaconservativeleaning——areonthesameside；andDiestel，inhisfulldiscussionofthesubject，remorselesslyrejectstheuniversalitydoctrine。Eventhatstaunchopponentofscientificrationalism——mayIsayrationality？——Zocklerflinchesfromadistinctdefenceofthethesis，anyoppositiontowhich，wellwithinmyrecollection，washowleddownbytheorthodoxasmere"infidelity。"Allthat，inhissorestraits，Dr。Zocklerisabletodo，istopronounceafaintcommendationuponaparticularlyabsurdattemptatreconciliation，whichwouldmakeouttheNoachianDelugetobeacatastrophewhichoccurredattheendoftheGlacialEpoch。Thishypothesisinvolvesonlythetrifleofaphysicalrevolutionofwhichgeologyknowsnothing；andwhich，ifitsecuredtheaccuracyofthePentateuchalwriteraboutthefactoftheDeluge，wouldleavethedetailsofhisaccountasirreconcilablewiththetruthsofelementaryphysicalscienceasever。ThusImaybepermittedtosparemyselfandmyreadersthewearinessofarecapitulationoftheoverwhelmingargumentsagainsttheuniversalityoftheDeluge，whichtheywillnowfindforthemselvesstated，asfullyandforciblyascouldbewished，byAnglicanandothertheologians，whoseorthodoxyandconservativetendencieshave，hitherto，beenabovesuspicion。
Yetmanyfullyadmit（and，indeed，nothingcanbeplainer）that，asamatteroffact，thewholeearthknowntohimwasinundated；
norisitlessobviousthatunlessallmankind，withtheexceptionofNoahandhisfamily，wereactuallydestroyed，thereferencestotheFloodintheNewTestamentareunintelligible。
ButIamquiteawarethatthestrengthofthedemonstrationthatnouniversalDelugeevertookplacehasproducedachangeoffrontinthearmyofapologeticwriters。Theyhaveimaginedthatthesubstitutionoftheadjective"partial"for"universal，"
willsavethecreditofthePentateuch，andpermitthem，afterall，withouttoomanyblushes，todeclarethattheprogressofmodernscienceonlystrengthenstheauthorityofMoses。
NowherehaveIfoundthecaseoftheadvocatesofthismethodofescapingfromthedifficultiesoftheactualpositionbetterputthaninthelectureofProfessorDiesteltowhichIhavereferred。Afterfranklyadmittingthattheolddoctrineofuniversalityinvolvesphysicalimpossibilities，hecontinues:——
AllthesedifficultiesfallawayassoonaswegiveuptheuniversalityoftheDeluge，andimagineapartial
floodingoftheearth，sayinwesternAsia。Buthavewearighttodoso？Thenarrativespeaksof"thewholeearth。"Butwhatisthemeaningofthisexpression？Surelynotthewholesurfaceoftheearthaccordingtotheideasofmoderngeographers，but，atmost，accordingtotheconceptionsoftheBiblicalauthor。Thisverysimpleconclusion，however，isneverdrawnbytoomanyreadersoftheBible。Butoneneedonlycastone’seyesoverthetenthchapterofGenesisinordertobecomeacquaintedwiththegeographicalhorizonoftheJews。InthenorthitwasboundedbytheBlackSeaandthemountainsofArmenia；
extendedtowardstheeastverylittlebeyondtheTigris；
hardlyreachedtheapexofthePersianGulf；passed，then，throughthemiddleofArabiaandtheRedSea；wentsouthwardthroughAbyssinia，andthenturnedwestwardbythefrontiersofEgypt，andinclosedtheeasternmostislandsoftheMediterranean（p。11）。