638 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



story, but as a necessary consequence of some of its details. The 

 latest exponent of Anglican orthodoxy, as we have seen, insists 

 upon the accuracy of the Pentateuchal history of the flood in a 

 still more forcible manner. It is cited as one of those very narra- 

 tives 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. 



ISTow, 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 eccle- 

 siastical 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 un- 

 authorized interference with their business and relegate the Pen- 

 tateuchal 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 anti- 

 quarianism. But it was not so in my youth. At that time, geol- 

 ogists 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 1825 was, if I remember rightly, the last occasion on which the 

 late Sir Charles Lyell spoke to even so small a public as the mem- 

 bers 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 

 vigor of the social ostracism which pursued him after the publi- 

 cation 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 contem- 

 poraries 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 Mo- 

 saic Deluge, by Dr. Buckland and Mr. Lyell, in the following 

 terms : 



