Thejusticeofthisobservationmustbeadmitted，nolessthanthefurtherremarkthat，instillearliertimes，thepastoralHebrewsveryprobablyhadyetmorerestrictednotionsofwhatconstitutedthe"wholeearth。"Moreover，I，forone，fullyagreewithProfessorDiestelthatthemotive，orgenerativeincident，ofthewholestoryistobesoughtintheoccasionallyexcessiveanddesolatingfloodsoftheEuphratesandtheTigris。
Letus，provisionally，acceptthetheoryofapartialdeluge，andtrytoformaclearmentalpictureoftheoccurrence。Letussupposethat，forfortydaysandfortynights，suchavastquantityofwaterwaspoureduponthegroundthatthewholesurfaceofMesopotamiawascoveredbywatertoadepthcertainlygreater，probablymuchgreater，thanfifteencubits，ortwentyfeet（Gen。vii。20）。Theinundationprevailsupontheearthforonehundredandfiftydaysandthenthefloodgraduallydecreases，until，ontheseventeenthdayoftheseventhmonth，theark，whichhadpreviouslyfloatedonitssurface，groundsuponthe"mountainsofArarat"（Gen。viii。34）。Then，asDiestelhasacutelypointedout（"Sintflut，"p。13），wearetoimaginethefurthersubsidenceofthefloodtotakeplacesograduallythatitwasnotuntilnearlytwomonthsandahalfafterthistime（thatistosay，onthefirstdayofthetenthmonth）thatthe"topsofthemountains"becamevisible。Henceitfollowsthat，ifthearkdrewevenasmuchastwentyfeetofwater，theleveloftheinundationfellveryslowly——atarateofonlyafewinchesaday——untilthetopofthemountainonwhichitrestedbecamevisible。Thisisanamountofmovementwhich，ifittookplaceinthesea，wouldbeoverlookedbyordinarypeopleontheshore。ButtheMesopotamianplainslopesgently，fromanelevationof500or600feetatitsnorthernend，tothesea，atitssouthernend，withhardlysomuchasanotableridgetobreakitsuniformflatness，for300to400
miles。Thesebeingtheconditionsofthecase，thefollowinginquirynaturallypresentsitself:not，beitobserved，asareconditeproblem，generatedbymodernspeculation，butasaplainsuggestionflowingoutofthatveryordinaryandarchaicpieceofknowledgethatwatercannotbepileduplikeinaheap，likesand；orthatitseeksthelowestlevel。When，after150
days，"thefountainsalsoofthedeepandthewindowsofheavenwerestopped，andtherainfromheavenwasrestrained"（Gen。
viii。2），whatpreventedthemassofwater，several，possiblyverymany，fathomsdeep，whichcovered，say，thepresentsiteofBagdad，fromsweepingseawardinafurioustorrent；and，inaveryfewhours，leaving，notonlythe"topsofthemountains，"
butthewholeplain，saveanyminordepressions，bare？Howcoulditssubsistence，byanypossibility，beanaffairofweeksandmonths？
Andifthisdifficultyisnotenough，letanyonetrytoimaginehowamassofwaterseveralperhapsverymany，fathomsdeep，couldbeaccumulatedonaflatsurfaceoflandrisingwellabovethesea，andseparatedfromitbynosortofbarrier。
MostpeopleknowLord’sCricket—ground。Woulditnotbeanabsurdcontradictiontoourcommonknowledgeofthepropertiesofwatertoimaginethat，ifallthemainsofallthewaterworksofLondonwereturnedontoit，theycouldmaintainaheapofwatertwentyfeetdeepoveritslevelsurface？Isitnotobviousthatthewater，whatevermomentaryaccumulationmighttakeplaceatfirst，wouldnotstopthere，butthatitwoulddash，likeamightymill—race，southwardsdownthegentleslopewhichendsintheThames？Andisitnotfurtherobvious，thatwhateverdepthofwatermightbemaintainedoverthecricket—groundsolongasallthemainspouredontoit，anythingwhichfloatedtherewouldbespeedilywhirledawaybythecurrent，likeacorkinagutterwhentherainpours？Butifthisisso，thenitisnolesscertainthatNoah’sdeeplyladen，sailless，oarless，andrudderlesscraft，ifbygoodfortuneitescapedcapsizinginwhirlpools，orhavingitsbottomknockedintoholesbysnags（likethosewhichprovefataleventowell—builtsteamersontheMississippiinourday），wouldhavespeedilyfounditselfagoodwaydownthePersianGulf，andnotlongafterintheIndianOcean，somewherebetweenArabiaandHindostan。Evenif，eventually，thearkmighthavegoneashore，withotherjetsamandflotsam，onthecoastsofArabia，orofHindostan，oroftheMaldives，orofMadagascar，itsreturntothe"mountainsofArarat"wouldhavebeenamiraclemorestupendousthanalltherest。
Thus，thelaststateofthewould—bereconcilersofthestoryoftheDelugewithfactisworsethanthefirst。Allthattheyhavedoneistotransferthecontradictionstoestablishedtruthfromtheregionofsciencepropertothatofcommoninformationandcommonsense。For，really，theassertionthatthesurfaceofabodyofdeepwater，towhichnoadditionwasmade，andwhichtherewasnothingtostopfromrunningintothesea，sankattherateofonlyafewinchesorevenfeetaday，simplyoutragesthemostordinaryandfamiliarteachingsofeveryman’sdailyexperience。Achildmayseethefollyofit。
Inaddition，Imayremarkthatthenecessaryassumptionofthe"partialDeluge"hypothesis（ifitisconfinedtoMesopotamia）
thattheHebrewwritermusthavemeantlowhillswhenhesaid"highmountains，"isquiteuntenable。OntheeasternsideoftheMesopotamianplain，thesnowypeaksofthefrontierrangesofPersiaarevisiblefromBagdad，andeventhemostignorantherdsmenintheneighbourhoodof"UroftheChaldees，"nearitswesternlimit，couldhardlyhavebeenunacquaintedwiththecomparativelyelevatedplateauoftheSyriandesertwhichlaycloseathand。But，surely，wemustsupposetheBiblicalwritertobeacquaintedwiththehighlandsofPalestineandwiththemassesoftheSinaiticpeninsula，whichsoarmorethan8000feetabovethesea，ifheknewofnohigherelevations；and，ifso，hecouldnotwellhavemeanttorefertomerehillockswhenhesaidthat"allthehighmountainswhichwereunderthewholeheavenwerecovered"（Genesisvii。19）。Eventhehill—countryofGalileereachesanelevationof4000feet；andafloodwhichcovereditcouldbynopossibilityhavebeenotherthanuniversalinitssuperficialextent。Waterreallycannotbegottostandat，say，4000feetabovethesea—leveloverPalestine，withoutcoveringtherestoftheglobetothesameheight。Evenif，inthecourseofNoah’ssixhundredthyear，someprodigiousconvulsionhadsunkthewholeregioninclosedwithin"thehorizonofthegeographicalknowledge"oftheIsraelitesbythatmuch，andanotherhadpusheditupagain，justintimetocatchthearkuponthe"mountainsofArarat，"mattersarenotmuchmended。Iamafraidtothinkofwhatwouldhavebecomeofavesselsolittleseaworthyasthearkandofitsverynumerouspassengers，underthepeculiarobstaclestoquietflotationwhichsuchrapidmovementsofdepressionandupheavalwouldhavegenerated。
Thus，inview，not，Irepeatofthereconditespeculationsofinfidelphilosophers，butinthefaceoftheplainestandmostcommonplaceofascertainedphysicalfacts，thestoryoftheNoachianDelugehasnomoreclaimtocreditthanhasthatofDeucalion；andwhetheritwas，orwasnot，suggestedbythefamiliaracquaintanceofitsoriginatorswiththeeffectsofunusuallygreatoverflowsoftheTigrisandEuphrates，itisutterlydevoidofhistoricaltruth。
Thatis，inmyjudgment，thenecessaryresultoftheapplicationofcriticism，baseduponassuredphysicalknowledgetothestoryoftheDeluge。Anditissatisfactorythatthecriticismwhichisbased，notuponliteraryandhistoricalspeculations，butuponwell—ascertainedfactsinthedepartmentsofliteratureandhistory，tendstoexactlythesameconclusion。
ForIfindthismuchagreeduponbyallBiblicalscholarsofrepute，thatthestoryoftheDelugeinGenesisisseparableintoatleasttwosetsofstatements；andthat，whenthestatementsthusseparatedarerecombinedintheirproperorder，eachsetfurnishesanaccountoftheevent，coherentandcompletewithinitself，butinsomerespectsdiscordantwiththataffordedbytheotherset。Thisfact，asIunderstand，isnotdisputed。WhetheroneoftheseistheworkofanElohist，andtheotherofaJehovistnarrator；whetherthetwohavebeenpiecedtogetherinthisstrangefashionbecause，intheestimationofthecompilersandeditorsofthePentateuch，theyhadequalandindependentauthority，ornot；orwhetherthereissomeotherwayofaccountingforit——arequestionstheanswerstowhichdonotaffectthefact。IfpossibleIavoidaprioriarguments。Butstill，Ithinkitmaybeurged，withoutimprudence，thatanarrativehavingthisstructureishardlysuchasmightbeexpectedfromawriterpossessedoffullandinfalliblyaccurateknowledge。Oncemore，itwouldseemthatitisnotnecessarilythemereinclinationofthescepticalspirittoquestioneverything，orthewilfulblindnessofinfidels，whichpromptsgravedoubtsastothevalueofanarrativethuscuriouslyunliketheordinaryrunofveracioushistories。
Butthevoiceofarchaeologicalandhistoricalcriticismstillhastobeheard；anditgivesforthnouncertainsound。Themarvellousrecoveryoftherecordsofanantiquity，farsuperiortoanythatcanbeascribedtothePentateuch，whichhasbeeneffectedbythedecipherersofcuneiformcharacters，hasputusinpossessionofaseries，oncemore，notofspeculations，butoffacts，whichhaveamostremarkablebearinguponthequestionofthetruthworthinessofthenarrativeoftheFlood。Itisestablished，thatforcenturiesbeforetheassertedmigrationofTerahfromUroftheChaldees（which，accordingtotheorthodoxinterpretersofthePentateuch，tookplaceaftertheyear2000
B。C。）LowerMesopotamiawastheseatofacivilisationinwhichartandscienceandliteraturehadattainedadevelopmentformerlyunsuspectedor，iftherewerefaintreportsofit，treatedasfabulous。Anditisalsonomatterofspeculation，butafact，thatthelibrariesofthesepeoplecontainversionsofalongepicpoem，oneofthetwelvebooksofwhichtellsastoryofadeluge，which，inanumberofitsleadingfeatures，correspondswiththestoryattributedtoBerosus，nolessthanwiththestorygiveninGenesis，withcuriousexactness。Thus，thecorrectnessofCanonRawlinson’sconclusion，citedabove，thatthestoryofBerosuswasneitherdrawnfromtheHebrewrecord，noristhefoundationofit，canhardlybequestioned。
Itishighlyprobable，ifnotcertain，thatBerosusreliedupononeoftheversions（forthereseemtohavebeenseveral）oftheoldBabylonianepos，extantinhistime；and，ifthatisareasonableconclusion，whyisitunreasonabletobelievethatthetwostories，whichtheHebrewcompilerhasputtogetherinsuchaninartisticfashion，wereultimatelyderivedfromthesamesource？Isayultimately，becauseitdoesnotatallfollowthatthetwoversions，possiblytrimmedbytheJehovisticwriterontheonehand，andbytheElohisticontheother，tosuitHebrewrequirements，maynothavebeencurrentamongtheIsraelitesforages。AndtheymayhaveacquiredgreatauthoritybeforetheywerecombinedinthePentateuch。
Lookingattheconvergenceofalltheselinesofevidencetotheoneconclusion——thatthestoryoftheFloodinGenesisismerelyaBowdlerisedversionofoneoftheoldestpiecesofpurelyfictitiousliteratureextant；thatwhetherthisis，orisnot，itsorigin，theeventsassertedinittohavetakenplaceassuredlyneverdidtakeplace；further，that，inpointoffact，thestory，intheplainandlogicallynecessarysenseofitswords，haslongsincebeengivenupbyorthodoxandconservativecommentatorsoftheEstablishedChurch——IcanbutadmirethecourageandclearforesightoftheAnglicandivinewhotellsusthatwemustbepreparedtochoosebetweenthetrustworthinessofscientificmethodandthetrustworthinessofthatwhichtheChurchdeclarestobeDivineauthority。For，tomymind，thisdeclarationofwartotheknifeagainstsecularscience，eveninitsmostelementaryform；thisrejection，withoutamoment’shesitation，ofanyandallevidencewhichconflictswiththeologicaldogma——istheonlypositionwhichislogicallyreconcilablewiththeaxiomsoforthodoxy。IftheGospelstrulyreportthatwhichanincarnationoftheGodofTruthcommunicatedtotheworld，thenitsurelyisabsurdtoattendtoanyotherevidencetouchingmattersaboutwhichhemadeanyclearstatement，orthetruthofwhichisdistinctlyimpliedbyhiswords。IftheexacthistoricaltruthoftheGospelsisanaxiomofChristianity，itisasjustandrightforaChristiantosay，Letus"closeourearsagainstsuggestions"ofscientificcritics，asitisforthemanofsciencetorefusetowastehistimeuponcircle—squarersandflat—earthfanatics。
ItiscommonlyreportedthatthemanifestobywhichtheCanonofSt。Paul’sproclaimsthathenailsthecoloursofthestraitestBiblicalinfallibilitytothemastoftheshipecclesiastical，wasputforthasacounterblastto"LuxMundi"；andthatthepassageswhichIhavemoreparticularlyquotedaredirectedagainsttheessayon"TheHolySpiritandInspiration"inthatcollectionoftreatisesbyAnglicandivinesofhighstanding，whomustassuredlybeacquittedofconscious"infidel"
proclivities。Ifancythatrumourmust，foronce，beright，foritisimpossibletoimagineamoredirectanddiametricalcontradictionthanthatbetweenthepassagesfromthesermoncitedaboveandthosewhichfollow:——
WhatisquestionedisthatourLord’swordsforeclosecertaincriticalpositionsastothecharacterofOldTestamentliterature。Forexample，doesHisuseofJonah’sresurrectionasatypeofHisown，dependinanyrealdegreeuponwhetheritishistoricalfactorallegory？……Oncemore，ourLordusesthetimebeforetheFlood，toillustratethecarelessnessofmenbeforeHisowncoming……InreferringtotheFloodHecertainlysuggeststhatHeistreatingitastypical，forHeintroducescircumstances——"eatinganddrinking，marryingandgivinginmarriage"——whichhavenocounterpartintheoriginalnarrative"（pp。358—9）。
WhileinsistingontheflowofinspirationthroughthewholeoftheOldTestament，theessayistdoesnotadmititsuniversality。
Here，also，thenewapologeticdemandsapartialflood:
Butdoestheinspirationoftherecorderguaranteetheexacthistoricaltruthofwhatherecords？And，inmatteroffact，cantherecordwithdueregardtolegitimatehistoricalcriticism，bepronouncedtrue？Now，tothelatterofthesetwoquestions（andtheyarequitedistinctquestions）wemayreplythatthereisnothingtopreventourbelieving，asourfaithstronglydisposesustobelieve，thattherecordfromAbrahamdownwardis，insubstance，inthestrictsensehistorical（p。351）。
Itwouldappear，therefore，thatthereisnothingtopreventourbelievingthattherecord，fromAbrahamupward，consistsofstoriesinthestrictsenseunhistorical，andthatthepre—
Abrahamicnarrativesaremeremoralandreligious"types"
andparables。
IconfessIsoonlosemywaywhenItrytofollowthosewhowalkdelicatelyamong"types"andallegories。Acertainpassionforclearnessforcesmetoask，bluntly，whetherthewritermeanstosaythatJesusdidnotbelievethestoriesinquestion，orthathedid？WhenJesusspoke，asofamatteroffact，that"theFloodcameanddestroyedthemall，"didhebelievethattheDelugereallytookplace，ornot？Itseemstomethat，asthenarrativementionsNoah’swife，andhissons’wives，thereisgoodscripturalwarrantyforthestatementthattheantediluviansmarriedandweregiveninmarriage；andIshouldhavethoughtthattheireatinganddrinkingmightbeassumedbythefirmestbelieverintheliteraltruthofthestory。
Moreover，Iventuretoaskwhatsortofvalue，asanillustrationofGod’smethodsofdealingwithsin，hasanaccountofaneventthatneverhappened？IfnoFloodsweptthecarelesspeopleaway，howisthewarningofmoreworththanthecryof"Wolf"whenthereisnowolf？IfJonah’sthreedays’
residenceinthewhaleisnotan"admittedreality，"howcouldit"warrantbelief"inthe"comingresurrection？"IfLot’swifewasnotturnedintoapillarofsalt，thebiddingthosewhoturnbackfromthenarrowpathto"remember"itis，morally，aboutonalevelwithtellinganaughtychildthatabogyiscomingtofetchitaway。SupposethataConservativeoratorwarnshishearerstobewareofgreatpoliticalandsocialchanges，lesttheyend，asinFrance，inthedominationofaRobespierre；
whatbecomes，notonlyofhisargument，butofhisveracity，ifhe，personally，doesnotbelievethatRobespierreexistedanddidthedeedsattributedtohim？
Likeallotherattemptstoreconciletheresultsofscientifically—conductedinvestigationwiththedemandsoftheoutworncreedsofecclesiasticism，theessayonInspirationisjustsuchafailureasmustawaitmediation，whenthemediatorisunableproperlytoappreciatetheweightoftheevidenceforthecaseofoneofthetwoparties。Thequestionof"Inspiration"reallypossessesnointerestforthosewhohavecastecclesiasticismandallitsworksaside，andhavenofaithinanysourceoftruthsavethatwhichisreachedbythepatientapplicationofscientificmethods。Theoriesofinspirationarespeculationsastothemeansbywhichtheauthorsofstatements，intheBibleorelsewhere，havebeenledtosaywhattheyhavesaid——anditassumesthatnaturalagenciesareinsufficientforthepurpose。Iprefertostopshortofthisproblem，findingitmoreprofitabletoundertaketheinquirywhichnaturallyprecedesit——namely，Arethesestatementstrueorfalse？Iftheyaretrue，itmaybeworthwhiletogointothequestionoftheirsupernaturalgeneration；iftheyarefalse，itcertainlyisnotworthmine。
Now，notonlydoIholdittobeproventhatthestoryoftheDelugeisapurefiction；butIhavenohesitationinaffirmingthesamethingofthestoryoftheCreation。Betweenthesetwoliesthestoryofthecreationofmanandwomanandtheirfallfromprimitiveinnocence，whichisevenmoremonstrouslyimprobablethaneitheroftheothertwo，though，fromthenatureofthecase，itisnotsoeasilycapableofdirectrefutation。
Itcanbedemonstratedthattheearthtooklongerthansixdaysinthemaking，andthattheDeluge，asdescribed，isaphysicalimpossibility；butthereisnoproving，especiallytothosewhoareperfectintheartofclosingtheirearstothatwhichtheydonotwishtohear，thatasnakedidnotspeak，orthatEvewasnotmadeoutofoneofAdam’sribs。
ThecompilerofGenesis，initspresentform，evidentlyhadadefiniteplaninhismind。Hiscountrymen，likeallothermen，weredoubtlesscurioustoknowhowtheworldbegan；howmen，andespeciallywickedmen，cameintobeing，andhowexistingnationsandracesaroseamongthedescendantsofonestock；and，finally，whatwasthehistoryoftheirownparticulartribe。
They，likeourselves，desiredtosolvethefourgreatproblemsofcosmogeny，anthropogeny，ethnogeny，andgeneogeny。ThePentateuchfurnishesthesolutionswhichappearedsatisfactorytoitsauthor。Oneofthese，aswehaveseen，wasborrowedfromaBabylonianfable；andIknowofnoreasontosuspectanydifferentoriginfortherest。Now，Iwouldask，isthestoryofthefabricationofEvetoberegardedasoneofthosepre—
Abrahamicnarratives，thehistoricaltruthofwhichisanopenquestion，infaceofthereferencetoitinaspeechunhappilyfamousforthelegaloppressiontowhichithasbeenwrongfullyforcedtolenditself？
Haveyenotread，thathewhichmadethemfromthebeginningmadethemmaleandfemale，andsaid，Forthiscauseshallamanleavehisfatherandmother，andcleavetohiswife；andthetwainshallbecomeoneflesh？"（Matt。xix。5。）
Ifdivineauthorityisnothereclaimedforthetwenty—fourthverseofthesecondchapterofGenesis，whatisthevalueoflanguage？Andagain，Iask，ifonemayplayfastandloosewiththestoryoftheFallasa"type"or"allegory，"whatbecomesofthefoundationofPaulinetheology？——
Forsincebymancamedeath，bymancamealsotheresurrectionofthedead。ForasinAdamalldie，soalsoinChristshallallbemadealive（1Corinthiansxv。21，22）。
IfAdammaybeheldtobenomorerealapersonagethanPrometheus，andifthestoryoftheFallismerelyaninstructive"type，"comparabletotheprofoundPrometheanmythus，whatvaluehasPaul’sdialectic？
While，therefore，everyright—mindedmanmustsympathisewiththeeffortsofthosetheologians，whohavenotbeenablealtogethertoclosetheirearstothestill，small，voiceofreason，toescapefromthefetterswhichecclesiasticismhasforged；themelancholyfactremains，thatthepositiontheyhavetakenupishopelesslyuntenable。Itisrakedalikebytheold—
fashionedartilleryofthechurchesandbythefatalweaponsofprecisionwithwhichtheenfantsperdusoftheadvancingforcesofsciencearearmed。Theymustsurrender，orfallbackintoamoreshelteredposition。Anditispossiblethattheymaylongfindsafetyinsuchretreat。
Itis，indeed，probablethattheproportionalnumberofthosewhowilldistinctlyprofesstheirbeliefinthetransubstantiationofLot’swife，andtheanticipatoryexperienceofsubmarinenavigationbyJonah；inwaterstandingfathomsdeeponthesideofadeclivitywithoutanythingtoholditup；andindevilswhoenterswine——willnotincrease。
Butneitheristheregroundformuchhopethattheproportionofthosewhocastasidethesefictionsandadopttheconsequenceofthatrepudiation，are，forsomegenerations，likelytoconstituteamajority。Ourageisadayofcompromises。Thepresentandthenearfutureseemgivenovertothosehappily，ifcuriously，constitutedpeoplewhoseeaslittledifficultyinthrowingasideanyamountofpost—AbrahamicScripturalnarrative，astheauthorsof"LuxMundi"seeinsacrificingthepre—Abrahamicstories；and，havingdistilledawayeveryinconvenientmatteroffactinChristianhistory，continuetopaydivinehonourstotheresidue。TherereallyseemstobenoreasonwhythenextgenerationshouldnotlistentoaBamptonLecturemodelleduponthataddressedtothelast:——
Timewas——andthatnotverylongago——whenalltherelationsofBiblicalauthorsconcerningthewholeworldwerereceivedwithareadybelief；andanunreasoninganduncriticalfaithacceptedwithequalsatisfactionthenarrativeoftheCaptivityandthedoingsofMosesatthecourtofPharaoh，theaccountoftheApostolicmeetingintheEpistletotheGalatians，andthatofthefabricationofEve。Wecanmostofusrememberwhen，inthiscountry，thewholestoryoftheExodus，andeventhelegendofJonah，wereseriouslyplacedbeforeboysashistory；anddiscoursedofinasdogmaticatoneasthetaleofAgincourtorthehistoryoftheNormanConquest。
Butallthisisnowchanged。Thelastcenturyhasseenthegrowthofscientificcriticismtoitsfullstrength。ThewholeworldofhistoryhasbeenrevolutionisedandthemythologywhichembarrassedearnestChristianshasvanishedasanevilmist，theliftingofwhichhasonlymorefullyrevealedthelineamentsofinfallibleTruth。Nolongerincontactwithfactofanykind，Faithstandsnowandforeverproudlyinaccessibletotheattacksoftheinfidel。
Sofartheapologistofthefuture。Whynot？Cantabitvacuus。
FOOTNOTES
（1）BamptonLectures（1859），on"TheHistoricalEvidenceoftheTruthoftheScriptureRecordsstatedanew，withSpecialReferencetotheDoubtsandDiscoveriesofModernTimes，"bytheRev。G。Rawlinson，M。A。，pp。5—6。
（2）TheWorthoftheOldTestament，aSermonpreachedinSt。Paul’sCathedralonthesecondSundayinAdvent，8thDec。，1889，byH。P。Liddon，D。D。，D。C。L。，CanonandChancellorofSt。
Paul’s。Secondeditionrevisedandwithanewpreface，1890。
（3）St。Lukexvii。32。
（4）St。Lukexvii。27。
（5）St。Matt。xii。40。
（6）BamptonLectures，1859，pp。50—51。
（7）CommentaryonGenesis，bytheBishopofEly，p。77。
（8）DieSintflut，1876。
（9）TheologieundNaturwissenschaft，ii。784—791（1877）。
（10）ItisverydoubtfulifthismeanstheregionoftheArmenianArarat。MoreprobablyitdesignatessomeparteitheroftheKurdishrangeorofitssouth—easterncontinuation。
（11）SoReclus（NouvelleGeographieUniverselle，ix。
386），butIfindthestatementdoubtedbyanauthorityofthefirstrank。
（12）SofarasIknow，thenarrativeoftheCreationisnotnowheldtobetrue，inthesenseinwhichIhavedefinedhistoricaltruth，byanyofthereconcilers。AsfortheattemptstostretchthePentateuchaldaysintoperiodsofthousandsormillionsofyears，theverdictoftheeminentBiblicalscholar，Dr。Riehm（DerbiblischeSchopfungsbericht，1881，pp。15，16）onsuchpranksof"Auslegungskunst"shouldbefinal。WhydothereconcilerstakeGoethe’sadviceseriously？——
"ImAuslegenseydfrischundmunter！
Legtihr’snichtaus，solegtwasunter。"