ui;inx OK THK mrix-jr AXD SPIEXPE \i 



hitherto, boon above suspicion. Yet 

 many fully admit (and, indeed, nothing can be 

 plainer) that tlio Pentateuchal narrator moans to 

 convey that, as a matter of fact, the whole earth 

 known to him was inundated ; nor is it loss 

 obvious that unless all mankind, with the excep- 

 tion of Noah and his family, wore actually de- 

 stroyed, the references to the Flood in the Now 

 Tostament are unintelligible. 



But I am 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 M 

 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 (liMiciilti.-s fall away as soon as \vc give up tli* 1 

 universality of the Deluge, ami imagine a part in? flooding of the 

 wiy in wi-stoni Asin. Rut liavo wo a right to do so ? 

 The narrative speaks of "the whole earth." J'.ut what is the 

 ling of this expression ? Surely not the whole surl'< 



