the lights of the church and the light of science- 第4部分

discussion　of　the　subject；　remorselessly　rejects　the

universality　doctrine。　Even　that　staunch　opponent　of　scientific

rationalismmay　I　say　rationality？Zockler　flinches　from　a

distinct　defence　of　the　thesis；　any　opposition　to　which；　well

within　my　recollection；　was　howled　down　by　the　orthodox　as　mere

〃infidelity。〃　All　that；　in　his　sore　straits；　Dr。　Zockler　is　able

to　do；　is　to　pronounce　a　faint　commendation　upon　a　particularly

absurd　attempt　at　reconciliation；　which　would　make　out　the

Noachian　Deluge　to　be　a　catastrophe　which　occurred　at　the　end　of

the　Glacial　Epoch。　This　hypothesis　involves　only　the　trifle　of　a

physical　revolution　of　which　geology　knows　nothing；　and　which；

if　it　secured　the　accuracy　of　the　Pentateuchal　writer　about　the

fact　of　the　Deluge；　would　leave　the　details　of　his　account　as

irreconcilable　with　the　truths　of　elementary　physical　science　as

ever。　Thus　I　may　be　permitted　to　spare　myself　and　my　readers　the

weariness　of　a　recapitulation　of　the　overwhelming　arguments

against　the　universality　of　the　Deluge；　which　they　will　now　find

for　themselves　stated；　as　fully　and　forcibly　as　could　be　wished；

by　Anglican　and　other　theologians；　whose　orthodoxy　and

conservative　tendencies　have；　hitherto；　been　above　suspicion。

Yet　many　fully　admit　（and；　indeed；　nothing　can　be　plainer）　that；

as　a　matter　of　fact；　the　whole　earth　known　to　him　was　inundated；

nor　is　it　less　obvious　that　unless　all　mankind；　with　the

exception　of　Noah　and　his　family；　were　actually　destroyed；　the

references　to　the　Flood　in　the　New　Testament　are　unintelligible。



But　I　am　quite　aware　that　the　strength　of　the　demonstration　that

no　universal　Deluge　ever　took　place　has　produced　a　change　of

front　in　the　army　of　apologetic　writers。　They　have　imagined　that

the　substitution　of　the　adjective　〃partial〃　for　〃universal；〃

will　save　the　credit　of　the　Pentateuch；　and　permit　them；　after

all；　without　too　many　blushes；　to　declare　that　the　progress　of

modern　science　only　strengthens　the　authority　of　Moses。

Nowhere　have　I　found　the　case　of　the　advocates　of　this　method　of

escaping　from　the　difficulties　of　the　actual　position　better　put

than　in　the　lecture　of　Professor　Diestel　to　which　I　have

referred。　After　frankly　admitting　that　the　old　doctrine　of

universality　involves　physical　impossibilities；　he　continues：





All　these　difficulties　fall　away　as　soon　as　we　give　up　the

universality　of　the　Deluge；　and　imagine　a　partial

flooding　of　the　earth；　say　in　western　Asia。　But　have　we　a　right

to　do　so？　The　narrative　speaks　of　〃the　whole　earth。〃　But　what　is

the　meaning　of　this　expression？　Surely　not　the　whole　surface　of

the　earth　according　to　the　ideas　of　modern　geographers；

but；　at　most；　according　to　the　conceptions　of　the　Biblical

author。　This　very　simple　conclusion；　however；　is　never　drawn　by

too　many　readers　of　the　Bible。　But　one　need　only　cast　one's　eyes

over　the　tenth　chapter　of　Genesis　in　order　to　become　acquainted

with　the　geographical　horizon　of　the　Jews。　In　the　north　it　was

bounded　by　the　Black　Sea　and　the　mountains　of　Armenia；

extended　towards　the　east　very　little　beyond　the　Tigris；

hardly　reached　the　apex　of　the　Persian　Gulf；　passed；　then；

through　the　middle　of　Arabia　and　the　Red　Sea；　went　southward

through　Abyssinia；　and　then　turned　westward　by　the　frontiers　of

Egypt；　and　inclosed　the　easternmost　islands　of　the

Mediterranean　（p。　11）。





The　justice　of　this　observation　must　be　admitted；　no　less　than

the　further　remark　that；　in　still　earlier　times；　the　pastoral

Hebrews　very　probably　had　yet　more　restricted　notions　of　what

constituted　the　〃whole　earth。〃　Moreover；　I；　for　one；　fully　agree

with　Professor　Diestel　that　the　motive；　or　generative　incident；

of　the　whole　story　is　to　be　sought　in　the　occasionally　excessive

and　desolating　floods　of　the　Euphrates　and　the　Tigris。



Let　us；　provisionally；　accept　the　theory　of　a　partial　deluge；

and　try　to　form　a　clear　mental　picture　of　the　occurrence。　Let　us

suppose　that；　for　forty　days　and　forty　nights；　such　a　vast

quantity　of　water　was　poured　upon　the　ground　that　the　whole

surface　of　Mesopotamia　was　covered　by　water　to　a　depth　certainly

greater；　probably　much　greater；　than　fifteen　cubits；　or　twenty

feet　（Gen。　vii。　20）。　The　inundation　prevails　upon　the　earth　for

one　hundred　and　fifty　days　and　then　the　flood　gradually

decreases；　until；　on　the　seventeenth　day　of　the　seventh　month；

the　ark；　which　had　previously　floated　on　its　surface；　grounds

upon　the　〃mountains　of　Ararat〃　（Gen。　viii。　34）。　Then；　as

Diestel　has　acutely　pointed　out　（〃Sintflut；〃　p。　13）；　we　are　to

imagine　the　further　subsidence　of　the　flood　to　take　place　so

gradually　that　it　was　not　until　nearly　two　months　and　a　half

after　this　time　（that　is　to　say；　on　the　first　day　of　the　tenth

month）　that　the　〃tops　of　the　mountains〃　became　visible。　Hence　it

follows　that；　if　the　ark　drew　even　as　much　as　twenty　feet　of

water；　the　level　of　the　inundation　fell　very　slowlyat　a　rate

of　only　a　few　inches　a　dayuntil　the　top　of　the　mountain　on

which　it　rested　became　visible。　This　is　an　amount　of　movement

which；　if　it　took　place　in　the　sea；　would　be　overlooked　by

ordinary　people　on　the　shore。　But　the　Mesopotamian　plain　slopes

gently；　from　an　elevation　of　500　or　600　feet　at　its　northern

end；　to　the　sea；　at　its　southern　end；　with　hardly　so　much　as　a

notable　ridge　to　break　its　uniform　flatness；　for　300　to　400

miles。　These　being　the　conditions　of　the　case；　the　following

inquiry　naturally　presents　itself：　not；　be　it　observed；　as　a

recondite　problem；　generated　by　modern　speculation；　but　as　a

plain　suggestion　flowing　out　of　that　very　ordinary　and　archaic

piece　of　knowledge　that　water　cannot　be　piled　up　like　in　a　heap；

like　sand；　or　that　it　seeks　the　lowest　level。　When；　after　150

days；　〃the　fountains　also　of　the　deep　and　the　windows　of　heaven

were　stopped；　and　the　rain　from　heaven　was　restrained〃　（Gen。

viii。2）；　what　prevented　the　mass　of　water；　several；　possibly

very　many；　fathoms　deep；　which　covered；　say；　the　present　site　of

Bagdad；　from　sweeping　seaward　in　a　furious　torrent；　and；　in　a

very　few　hours；　leaving；　not　only　the　〃tops　of　the　mountains；〃

but　the　whole　plain；　save　any　minor　depressions；　bare？　How　could

its　subsistence；　by　any　possibility；　be　an　affair　of　weeks

and　months？



And　if　this　difficulty　is　not　enough；　let　any　one　try　to　imagine

how　a　mass　of　water　several　perhaps　very　many；　fathoms　deep；

could　be　accumulated　on　a　flat　surface　of　land　rising　well　above

the　sea；　and　separated　from　it　by　no　sort　of　barrier。

Most　people　know　Lord's　Cricket…ground。　Would　it　not　be　an

absurd　contradiction　to　our　common　knowledge　of　the　properties

of　water　to　imagine　that；　if　all　the　mains　of　all　the　waterworks

of　London　were　turned　on　to　it；　they　could　maintain　a　heap　of

water　twenty　feet　deep　over　its　level　surface？　Is　it　not　obvious

that　the　water；　whatever　momentary　accumulation　might　take　place

at　first；　would　not　stop　there；　but　that　it　would　dash；　like　a

mighty　mill…race；　southwards　down　the　gentle　slope　which　ends　in

the　Thames？　And　is　it　not　further　obvious；　that　whatever　depth

of　water　might　be　maintained　over　the　cricket…ground　so　long　as

all　the　mains　poured　on　to　it；　anything　which　floated　there

would　be　speedily　whirled　away　by　the　current；　like　a　cork　in　a

gutter　when　the　rain　pours？　But　if　this　is　so；　then　it　is　no

less　certain　that　Noah's　deeply　laden；　sailless；　oarless；　and

rudderless　craft；　if　by　good　fortune　it　escaped　capsizing　in

whirlpools；　or　having　its　bottom　knocked　into　holes　by　snags

（like　those　which　prove　fatal　even　to　well…built　steamers　on　the

Mississippi　in　our　day）；　would　have　speedily　found　itself　a　good

way　down　the　Persian　Gulf；　and　not　long　after　in　the　Indian

Ocean；　somewhere　between　Arabia　and　Hindostan。　Even　if；

eventually；　the　ark　might　have　gone　ashore；　with　other　jetsam

and　flotsam；　on　the　coasts　of　Arabia；　or　of　Hindostan；　or　of　the

Maldives；　or　of　Madagascar；　its　return　to　the　〃mountains　of

Ararat〃　would　have　been　a　miracle　more　stupendous　than　all

the　rest。



Thus；　the　last　state　of　the　would…be　reconcilers　of　the　story　of

the　Deluge　with　fact　is　worse　than　the　first。　All　that　they　have

done　is　to　transfer　the　contradictions　to　established　truth　from

the　region　of　science　proper　to　that　of　common　information　and

common　sense。　For；　really；　the　assertion　that　the　surface　of　a

body　of　deep　water；　to　which　no　addition　was　made；　and　which

there　was　nothing　to　stop　from　running　into　the　sea；　sank　at　the

rate　of　only　a　few　inches　or　even　feet　a　day；　simply　outrages

the　most　ordinary　and　familiar　teachings　of　every　man's　daily

experience。　A　child　may　see　the　folly　of　it。



In　addition；　I　may　remark　that　the　necessary　assumption　of　the

〃partial　Deluge〃　hypothesis　（if　it　is　confined　to　Mesopotamia）

that　the　Hebrew　writer　must　have　meant　low　hills　when　he　said

〃high　mountains；〃　is　quite　untenable。　On　the　east