the lights of the church and the light of science- 第3部分

those　very　narratives　to　which　the　authority　of　the　Founder　of

Christianity　is　pledged；　and　upon　the　accuracy　of　which　〃the

trustworthiness　of　our　Lord　Jesus　Christ〃　is　staked；　just　as

others　have　staked　it　upon　the　truth　of　the　histories　of

demoniac　possession　in　the　Gospels。



Now；　when　those　who　put　their　trust　in　scientific　methods　of

ascertaining　the　truth　in　the　province　of　natural　history　find

themselves　confronted　and　opposed；　on　their　own　ground；　by

ecclesiastical　pretensions　to　better　knowledge；　it　is；

undoubtedly；　most　desirable　for　them　to　make　sure　that　their

conclusions；　whatever　they　may　be；　are　well　founded。　And；　if

they　put　aside　the　unauthorised　interference　with　their　business

and　relegate　the　Pentateuchal　history　to　the　region　of　pure

fiction；　they　are　bound　to　assure　themselves　that　they　do　so

because　the　plainest　teachings　of　Nature　（apart　from　all

doubtful　speculations）　are　irreconcilable　with　the　assertions

which　they　reject。



At　the　present　time；　it　is　difficult　to　persuade　serious

scientific　inquirers　to　occupy　themselves；　in　any　way；　with　the

Noachian　Deluge。　They　look　at　you　with　a　smile　and　a　shrug；　and

say　they　have　more　important　matters　to　attend　to　than　mere

antiquarianism。　But　it　was　not　so　in　my　youth。　At　that　time；

geologists　and　biologists　could　hardly　follow　to　the　end　any

path　of　inquiry　without　finding　the　way　blocked　by　Noah　and　his

ark；　or　by　the　first　chapter　of　Genesis；　and　it　was　a　serious

matter；　in　this　country　at　any　rate；　for　a　man　to　be　suspected

of　doubting　the　literal　truth　of　the　Diluvial　or　any　other

Pentateuchal　history。　The　fiftieth　anniversary　of　the　foundation

of　the　Geological　Club　（in　1824）　was；　if　I　remember　rightly；　the

last　occasion　on　which　the　late　Sir　Charles　Lyell　spoke　to　even

so　small　a　public　as　the　members　of　that　body。　Our　veteran

leader　lighted　up　once　more；　and；　referring　to　the　difficulties

which　beset　his　early　efforts　to　create　a　rational　science　of

geology；　spoke；　with　his　wonted　clearness　and　vigour；　of　the

social　ostracism　which　pursued　him　after　the　publication　of　the

〃Principles　of　Geology；〃　in　1830；　on　account　of　the　obvious

tendency　of　that　noble　work　to　discredit　the　Pentateuchal

accounts　of　the　Creation　and　the　Deluge。　If　my　younger

contemporaries　find　this　hard　to　believe；　I　may　refer　them　to　a

grave　book；　〃On　the　Doctrine　of　the　Deluge；〃　published　eight

years　later；　and　dedicated　by　its　author　to　his　father；　the　then

Archbishop　of　York。　The　first　chapter　refers　to　the　treatment　of

the　〃Mosaic　Deluge；〃　by　Dr。　Buckland　and　Mr。　Lyell；　in　the

following　terms：





Their　respect　for　revealed　religion　has　prevented　them　from

arraying　themselves　openly　against　the　Scriptural　account　of　it

much　less　do　they　deny　its　truthbut　they　are　in　a　great

hurry　to　escape　from　the　consideration　of　it；　and　evidently

concur　in　the　opinion　of　Linnaeus；　that　no　proofs　whatever　of

the　Deluge　are　to　be　discovered　in　the　structure　of　the

earth　（p。　1）。





And　after　an　attempt　to　reply　to　some　of　Lyell's　arguments；

which　it　would　be　cruel　to　reproduce；　the　writer　continues：



When；　therefore；　upon　such　slender　grounds；　it　is

determined；　in　answer　to　those　who　insist　upon　its　universality；

that　the　Mosaic　Deluge　must　be　considered　a　preternatural　event；

far　beyond　the　reach　of　philosophical　inquiry；　not　only　as　to

the　causes　employed　to　produce　it；　but　as　to　the　effects　most

likely　to　result　from　it；　that　determination　wears　an　aspect　of

scepticism；　which；　however　much　soever　it　may　be　unintentional

in　the　mind　of　the　writer；　yet　cannot　but　produce　an　evil

impression　on　those　who　are　already　predisposed　to　carp　and

cavil　at　the　evidences　of　Revelation　（pp。　8…9）。





The　kindly　and　courteous　writer　of　these　curious　passages　is

evidently　unwilling　to　make　the　geologists　the　victims　of

general　opprobrium　by　pressing　the　obvious　consequences　of　their

teaching　home。　One　is　therefore　pained　to　think　of　the　feelings

with　which；　if　he　lived　so　long　as　to　become　acquainted　with　the

〃Dictionary　of　the　Bible；〃　he　must　have　perused　the　article

〃Noah；〃　written　by　a　dignitary　of　the　Church　for　that　standard

compendium　and　published　in　1863。　For　the　doctrine　of　the

universality　of　the　Deluge　is　therein　altogether　given　up；　and　I

permit　myself　to　hope　that　a　long　criticism　of　the　story　from

the　point　of　view　of　natural　science；　with　which；　at　the　request

of　the　learned　theologian　who　wrote　it；　I　supplied　him；　may；　in

some　degree；　have　contributed　towards　this　happy　result。



Notwithstanding　diligent　search；　I　have　been　unable　to　discover

that　the　universality　of　the　Deluge　has　any　defender　left；　at

least　among　those　who　have　so　far　mastered　the　rudiments　of

natural　knowledge　as　to　be　able　to　appreciate　the　weight　of

evidence　against　it。　For　example；　when　I　turned　to　the

〃Speaker's　Bible；〃　published　under　the　sanction　of　high　Anglican

authority；　I　found　the　following　judicial　and　judicious

deliverance；　the　skilful　wording　of　which　may　adorn；　but　does

not　hide；　the　completeness　of　the　surrender　of　the

old　teaching：





Without　pronouncing　too　hastily　on　any　fair　inferences　from　the

words　of　Scripture；　we　may　reasonably　say　that　their　most

natural　interpretation　is；　that　the　whole　race　of　man　had　become

grievously　corrupted　since　the　faithful　had　intermingled　with

the　ungodly；　that　the　inhabited　world　was　consequently　filled

with　violence；　and　that　God　had　decreed　to　destroy　all　mankind

except　one　single　family；　that；　therefore；　all　that　portion　of

the　earth；　perhaps　as　yet　a　very　small　portion；　into　which

mankind　had　spread　was　overwhelmed　with　water。　The　ark　was

ordained　to　save　one　faithful　family；　and　lest　that　family；　on

the　subsidence　of　the　waters；　should　find　the　whole　country

round　them　a　desert；　a　pair　of　all　the　beasts　of　the　land　and　of

the　fowls　of　the　air　were　preserved　along　with　them；　and　along

with　them　went　forth　to　replenish　the　now　desolated　continent。

The　words　of　Scripture　（confirmed　as　they　are　by　universal

tradition）　appear　at　least　to　mean　as　much　as　this。　They　do　not

necessarily　mean　more。





In　the　third　edition　of　Kitto's　〃Cyclopaedia　of　Biblical

Literature〃　（1876）；　the　article　〃Deluge；〃　written　by　my　friend；

the　present　distinguished　head　of　the　Geological　Survey　of　Great

Britain；　extinguishes　the　universality　doctrine　as　thoroughly　as

might　be　expected　from　its　authorship；　and；　since　the　writer　of

the　article　〃Noah〃　refers　his　readers　to　that　entitled　〃Deluge；〃

it　is　to　be　supposed；　notwithstanding　his　generally　orthodox

tone；　that　he　does　not　dissent　from　its　conclusions。　Again；　the

writers　in　Herzog's　〃Real…Encyclopadie〃　（Bd。　X。　1882）　and　in

Riehm's　〃Handworterbuch〃　（1884）both　works　with　a　conservative

leaningare　on　the　same　side；　and　Diestel；　in　his　full

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