VI LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND SCIENCE 219 



(Bd. X. 1882) and in Riehm's " Handworterbuch * 

 (1884) both works with a conservative leaning 

 are on the same side ; and Diestel, 1 in his full 

 discussion of the subject, remorselessly rejects the 

 universality doctrine. Even that staunch oppon- 

 ent of scientific rationalism may I say rationality? 

 Zockler, 2 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 oc- 

 curred 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 Penta- 

 teuchal 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 theo- 

 logians, whose orthodoxy and conservative tend- 



1 Die Sintflut, 1876. 



2 Thcologie und Natiirwissensclwft, ii. 784-791 (1877> 



