92 
and consequences of human sin, whose expressions must not, 
therefore, he taken literally. 
Thirdly, there are those who admit the contradictions 
alleged, at least in part, hut deny their importance. These 
also adopt a kind of allegorical interpretation; not, how- 
ever, like the last mentioned, as the method intended hy the 
writer to be employed, but merely as our method of extracting 
the kernel of truth from that which the writer, guided either 
hy tradition or his own fancy, regarded as true throughout. 
The history of the Deluge recorded in Gen. vi.-viii. fur- 
nishes the next ground of objection; the Scripture narrative, 
it is urged, plainly describing a strictly universal flood, which 
Science as distinctly disproves; 1st, by the phenomena ob- 
servable in regard to certain volcanic hills in the south of 
France ; 2nd, by the impossibility of the collection and redis- 
tribution of all existing species of animals from all parts of the 
earth; 3rd, by the utter insufficiency of the ark described to 
accommodate all these, and various difficulties connected with 
their preservation. Other minor objections of similar cha- 
racter are also urged, which need not be detailed at length. 
The answers to these alleged contradictions fall into the 
same three groups as before : — 
First of all, we have those which maintain the view of a 
universal deluge, by denying the force of the objections; 
which speak of the evidence derived from the volcanic hills of 
France as delusive and unsound, and get over the other diffi- 
culties by a plentiful assumption of miracles, either in the 
way of a supernatural gathering and preservation of the ani- 
mals in question, or of a new creation of large numbers of 
fresh species in various places after the Deluge. Many new 
and original scientific theories as to the causes and manner of 
operation of the flood, harmonizing with its universality, also 
find ready currency among the controversialists of this school. 
Then, Second, we have those answers which concede the 
justice of the scientific objections, but elude their force by 
modifying the interpretation of Scripture. . These maintain 
the view that the deluge was only partial, being caused by the 
depression of the land in one particular portion of the earth's 
surface ; a part, again, as it happens, of which geologists as 
yet know very little. The majority of these answers still 
uphold the universality as regards man; a few concede its 
partiality in this respect also. • 
While, Thirdly, there are yet other answers which admit 
the objections altogether, but deny their importance. Accord- 
ing to these, the actual deluge was no doubt partial, as respects 
both animals and man, but was regarded by the writer of the 
