249 
population of the globe was not co-extensive with the surface of the globe at 
that period, and as the Deluge was instituted simply for the purpose of 
destroying mankind, it follows that those portions of the entire creation 
which were outlying the area occupied by men would not be destroyed, on 
the principle of Divine beneficence, if it could be avoided ; and that the idea 
of a perpetual succession of miracles so enormous as those which must be 
demanded by a universal deluge (and geology has proved them still greater 
than they were thought to be in the days of Stillingfleet), made the univer- 
sality of the Deluge a thing which was thoroughly improbable. Now, if 
Stillingfleet held that view, and if science and geology in our own day con- 
firm it, and if such good Christian men and able authorities as Dr. Pye 
Smith and others hold it, there can be no objection to our holding it. Then 
there is another topic upon which Mr. Moule has touched with regard to the 
animals within the Ark. I think myself that according to the Mosaic theory 
the polar bears would be unclean animals. It has been very properly pointed 
out that it would have required a vast number of years to gather animals 
from every part of the world into the Ark, but much less time would be 
necessary to collect animals from a small geographical area ; and, in my view, 
all that the story goes to show is, that the animals preserved in the Ark were 
only those which belonged to the district over which the Deluge extended. 
The whole of the argument is lost and obliterated if we do not suppose that 
all the animals within the area of the Deluge were preserved by twos or by 
sevens, clean and unclean, for the purpose of preserving them ; and that 
order was clearly given by God to avoid the necessity of a second creation. 
Mr. Moule’s paper, however, seems to imply that that was not so, and that 
there was a gigantic re-creation of the animals which were submerged and 
destroyed, and that the only reason for some of them being put in the Ark 
was that they might be preserved for sacrifice and food during the con- 
tinuance of the Flood 
Rev. H. Moule. — No, no. 
The Chairman. — Mr. Moule said nothing of that sort. 
Mr. Titcomb. — Then that is my mistake. It would be unfair to press the 
argument about such a series of stupendous miracles, and the polar bears 
being kept in the Ark, if Mr. Moule opposes the notion that they were 
brought in ; but I think the whole bearing of the narrative is that the animals 
were taken into the Ark to preserve them, because otherwise they would 
have been destroyed. It seems to imply that as all mankind were destroyed 
so all beasts were destroyed, and that as man was taken into the Ark as a 
type of his race for preservation and reproduction, so twos and sevens of the 
animals were taken in as types of their races for the same purpose, and to 
avoid the necessity for re-creation. The theory of new creations is one upon 
which Scripture is utterly silent, and we might almost appear to be irreverent 
to the word of God by believing in it. 
Mr. Reddie. There are one or two obscurities in this paper which I should 
like to have explained. The first is Mr. Moule’s theory of a previous creation 
before the creation of light. I cannot understand how the world could be 
S 2 
