220 LIGHTS OF THE CHURCH AND SCIENCE vi 



encies have, hitherto, been above suspicion. Yet 

 many fully admit (and, indeed, nothing can be 

 plainer) that the Pentateuchal narrator means to 

 convey 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 excep- 

 tion of Noah and his family, were actually de- 

 stroyed, the references to the Flood in the New 

 Testament are unintelligible. 



But I arn 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 



