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.<7>


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
leaning--are on the same side; and Diestel,<8> in his full
discussion of the subject, remorselessly rejects the
universality doctrine. Even that staunch opponent of scientific
rationalism--may I say rationality?--Zockler<9> 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