the Relation between the Hob/ Scriptures and some Parts of Geological Science, p. 135). Nor do these numbers form the only difficulty ; for, as the same writer ob- serves : "All land animals have their geographical regions, to which their constitutional natures are con- genial, and many could not live in any other situation. We cannot represent to ourselves the idea of their be- ing brought into one small spot, from the polar re- gions, the torrid zone, and all the other climates of Asia, Africa, Europe, America, Australia, and the thou- sands of islands, their preservation and provision, and the final disposal of them, without bringing up the idea of miracles more stupendous than an}' which are recorded in Scripture." These are some of the diffi- culties which arise on the supposition that all the spe- cies of animals existing in the world were assembled together and contained in the ark. And if the object, as usually assumed, was to preserve the species of creatures which the Deluge would otherwise have de- stroyed, the provision for beasts and birds only must have been altogether inadequate. What, then, would have become of the countless reptiles, insects, and an- imalcules to which we have already referred ? and it is not clear that some provision must not also have been necessaiy for fishes and shell-animals, many of which cannot live in fresh water, while others cannot live in salt. The difficulty of assembling in one spot, and of providing for in the ark, the various mammalia and birds alone, even without including the otherwise essential provision for reptiles, insects, and fishes, is quite sufficient to suggest some error in the current be- lief. We are to consider the different kinds of accom- modation and food which would be required for ani- mals of such different habits and climates, and the necessary provision for cleansing the stables or dens. And if so much ingenuity has been required in devis- ing arrangements for the comparatively small number of species which the writers on the ark have been will- ing to admit into it, what provision can be made for the immensely larger number which, under the sup- posed conditions, would really have required its shel- ter ? There seems to be no way of meeting these dif- ficulties but by adopting the suggestion of Bishop Stil- lingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole, Dr. J. Pye Smith, Le Clerc, Eosenmuller, and others, namely, that, as the object of the Deluge was to sweep man from the earth, it did not extend beyond that region of the earth which man then inhabited, and that only the animals of that region were preserved in the ark. See Deluge. Bishop Stillingfleet, who wrote in plain soberness lung before geology was known as a science, and when, therefore, those discoveries were altogether unthought of, by which, in our day, such warm con- troversies have been excited, expresses his belief that the Flood was universal as to mankind, and that all men, except those preserved in the ark, were destroy- ed ; but he sees no evidence from Scripture that the whole earth was then inhabited ; he does not think that it can ever be proved to have been so ; and he asks what reason there can be to extend the Flood be- yond the occasion of it. He grants that, as far as the Flood extended, all the animals were destroyed ; " but," he adds, " I see no reason to extend the destruction of these beyond the compass of the earth which men then inhabited ; the punishment of the beasts was oc- casioned by, and could not but lie concomitant with, the destruction of mankind. But (the occasion of the Deluge being the sin of man, who was punished in the beasts that were destroyed for his sake, as well as in himself) where the occasion was not, as where there were animals and no men, there seems no necessity for extending the Flood thither" (Orir/ines Sacrw, bk. iii, ch. iv). The bishop farther argues that the rea- son for preserving living creatures in the ark was that there might be a stock of the tame and domesti- cated animals that should be immediately "service- able for man after the Flood ; which was certainly the Cc
main thing looked at in the preservation of them in the ark, that men might have all of them ready for use after the Flood; which could not have been had not the several kinds been preserved in the ark, although we suppose them not destroyed in all parts of the world."
As Noah was the progenitor of all the nations of the earth, and as the ark was the second cradle of the hu- man race, we might expect to find in all nations tra- ditions and reports more or less distinct respecting him, the ark in which he was saved, and the Deluge in general. Accordingly, no nation is known in which such traditions have not been found. They have been very industriously brought together by Banier, Bryant, Faber, and other mythologists. See Ara- rat; Noah. And as it appears that an ark— that is, a boat or chest — was carried about with great cer- emony in most of the ancient mysteries, and occupied an eminent station in the holy places, it has with much reason been concluded that this was originally intended to represent the ark of Noah, which eventu- ally came to be regarded with superstitious reverence. On this point the historical and mythological testimo- nies are very clear and conclusive. The tradition of a deluge', by which the race of man was swept from the face of the earth, has been traced among the Chal- daeans, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Goths, Druids, Chinese, Hindoos, Burmese, Mexicans, Peruvians, Brazilians, Nicara- guans, the inhabitants of Western Caledonia, and the islanders of the Pacific ; and among most of them also the belief has prevailed that certain individuals were preserved in an ark, ship, boat, or raft, to replenish the desolated earth with inhabitants. Nor are these traditions uncorroborated by coins and monuments of stone. Of the latter there are the sculptures of Egypt and of India ; and it is fancied that those of the mon- uments called Druidical which bear the name of kist- vaens, and in which the stones arc disposed in the