144 
Assyria. From this, the only proper stand-point, “ the whole 
earth ” will convey a very different meaning from that which 
its employment by a modern writer would convey; while 
“under the whole heaven” will assume a correspondingly 
restricted signification. 
Examples of unrestricted terms manifestly used in a re- 
stricted sense, are so frequent in the Bible, that one's only 
difficulty is to make selections. In the narrative of the Deluge 
we are told that “ all the high hills that were under the whole 
heaven w^ere covered.” Well, observe in what sense “under 
the whole heaven ” is used by the very writer to whom we 
owe the history of the Deluge. In Deuteronomy ii. 25, we 
have these words of Moses : — “ This day will I begin to put 
the dread of thee, and the fear of thee upon the nations that 
are under the whole heaven , who shall hear report of thee, and 
shall tremble, and be in anguish because of thee.” Compare 
this with chapter xi. 25 : “ There shall no man be able to 
stand before you, for the Lord your God shall lay the fear of 
you, and the dread of you upon all the land that ye shall tread 
upon, as he hath said unto you. 33 These two verses compared, 
give us the meaning which Moses attached to the words 
“ under the whole heaven.” They are simply equivalent to 
“ the land that ye shall tread upon 33 ; in other words, to 
the land of Canaan and its contiguous tribes. The words of 
St. Luke, in Acts ii. 5, afford another illustration of the em- 
ployment of almost the identical phraseology of Moses in a 
very restricted sense : “ There were dwelling at Jerusalem,” 
he writes, “Jews, devout men, out of every nation under 
heaven. 33 Yet when he gives us details (verses 9 — 11), it is 
at once apparent that, like the earlier writers, he employs the 
words in a most limited sense. So St. Paul, when evidently 
referring to the chief countries in the Roman empire only, 
writes to the Colossians (i. 23) that the Gospel had been 
“ preached to every creature under heaven. 33 So far as the 
expression, “ under the whole heaven,” is concerned, then, it 
cannot be denied that, comparing Scripture with Scripture, 
we are perfectly justified in assigning to it, when necessary, a 
limited signification. 
With respect to the declaration that “ the flood was on 
the earth 33 ; that “ all flesh died that moved upon the earth ” ; 
that “ every living substance was destroyed which was upon 
the face of the ground,” a similar restricted meaning is allowed 
by the usus loquendi of Scripture. In Jeremiah li. 7, 25, 49, 
“ all the earth 33 denotes the Chaldean empire. In Daniel ii. 39 
it signifies the empire of Alexander the Great. In passages 
innumerable, which any Biblical Concordance will furnish, it 
