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）。