159 
all that the hail had left ! Then, there must have been something left. Here 
it is as plain as anybody could have it. There is a universal proposition which 
declares that all the herbs and trees were destroyed by the hail. 
Mr. Reddie. — “ Smitten and broken.” 
Dr. Rigg — It does not matter whether you say “ smitten ” or “ destroyed ” ; 
it amounts to the same thing. In one clause you have it asserted that the hail 
smote every herb of the field, and in the next that the locusts ate up every herb 
which the hail had left. But if the hail smote every herb, how could it leave 
any for the locusts to eat ? You may look at it for ever, but you can make 
nothing else of the passage if you are to have a literal interpretation. It is 
perfectly clear. You have it first declared that the hail smote every herb of 
the field, and then that after every herb had been so smitten the locusts 
came and ate up every herb in the same field. But this is an old story that 
has been noticed long ago. It teaches us that a universal phrase is some- 
times used in the Scriptures in an accommodated and limited sense. It is 
for that purpose it has been used here, and that passage is fully to the point. 
Nothing can be more clear and decisive to prove that a universal expression 
is employed in a limited sense. Then there is the passage : — “ There were 
dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.” 
Mr. Row has given as much study to the language of the Scriptures as most 
men, and especially to the language of the New Testament, and I must say 
I agree with him that that passage is strictly in point. The assertion is that 
“ There were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation 
under heaven.” Mr. Reddie says that no one supposes that is to be 
interpreted precisely, because no one supposes it is meant universally. 
Therefore I say it is the more pungent illustration that there are phrases 
in Scripture having a universal sound, and a literal meaning, which are 
not to be understood in a universal sense. That is the very point Mr. 
Davison is aiming to prove, that you may use expressions currently which 
you have been so much accustomed to understand in an accommodated 
sense, that you do not perceive they are so much more universal than others. 
That is an absolutely universal phrase : “ Out of every nation under heaven” ; 
but yet no one supposes there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews out of every 
nation in the world. Then there is the phrase, that the Gospel had been 
preached to every creature under heaven.” Mr. Reddie says no one sup- 
poses that the Gospel had been then preached to every living creature. 
Exactly so ; and that is the reason why Mr. Davison has quoted the passage, 
because no one supposes it to have had a universal meaning. Therefore it is 
that that particular phrase is quoted as an instance of a universal phrase 
which has not got a universal meaning. It illustrates Mr. Davison’s point 
that you may have phrases universal in their scope which are not to be 
interpreted in their full, absolute, universal meaning. But it may be asked* 
have the universal phrases used in describing the Flood to have no meanin 
at all ? I say certainly they have a meaning. When we are told in the 
Scriptures that “ all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were 
covered,” we are to place ourselves in the position of Noah, at his centre 
