253 
of the universality of the Noachian deluge. The more we consider true 
science, and the more fairly we interpret Scripture, the more we must 
be brought to the conclusion that the Noachian deluge was universal. 
In the first place, all theologians are agreed on one point, that the Deluge was 
as universal as the human race. No fair interpretation which you can give 
to the New Testament, and no fair interpretation which you can place upon 
the Old Testament, will lead you to any other doctrine than the universality 
of the destruction of the human race with the exception of Noah and 
his family. Now if you admit that the passages which you take from 
the Holy Scriptures prove the universality of the destruction of the human 
race, with the exception of those eight who survived in the Ark, — if you take 
the Holy Scriptures as bearing the interpretation of universality of that, — I 
claim the same universality of interpretation as to what is said to be 
the destruction of all flesh upon the earth. If you give a universal interpre- 
tation to the one, I think you are bound to give the same interpretation 
to the other ; and if you talk of universality of the destruction of the human 
race, I believe you must at the same time admit the universality of the 
Deluge over the whole earth. In this way you get rid of all difficulty 
of exegesis and of interpretation by comparing other passages of Scripture 
where similar universal terms are used, but where the facts are so narrowed 
or where they are used in such a connection you cannot give a universal 
interpretation to them. But I would point out a great theological difficulty 
into which such an interpretation as that of Mr. Titcomb would lead us. If 
I am to say that the terms describing the destruction of all flesh are not 
universal, I must apply the same interpretation to the destruction of the 
human race. In that case we should have no answer to such a paper as the 
last one which was read in the Institute, and which received very little 
countenance from our members. I do not see how you are to answer those 
men who maintain the plurality of the human race, or how are you to 
maintain the universality of the destruction of the human race, if you are to 
use such an interpretation as this ? You may then admit hundreds of other 
races besides the Adamic race ; and when the authors of the New Testament 
speak of the universality of the destruction of the human race, you may place 
just such an interpretation upon that as leads you to interpret a partial 
deluge of the earth. Now let us go to the real facts 
Mr. Reddie. — Will you be good enough to explain why you maintain this 
ground ? The human race were created in only one place or centre, whereas 
the animals, I suppose, were “ brought forth ” all over the world. I only 
ask for argument’s sake, but why do you object to a deluge that would 
be universal as regards the human race, but which might not spread to 
Australia or to other countries where there were then no human beings ? 
W hy do you object to this — on your theory of the creation, I mean ? 
The Chairman. — I think that that is sufficiently clear in that portion of 
Stillingfleet where he maintains that it is not necessary to believe in a 
universal deluge. He meets that position by limiting the language of Scrip- 
ture when it speaks of the destruction of all flesh on the earth. He says 
