ality of it as to
the globe of the earth, unless it be sufficiently proved that the whole
earth was peopled before the Flood, which I despair of ever seeing
proved." It was not, however, until the comparatively recent times in
which the belief entertained by Poole and Stillingfleet was adopted and
enforced by writers such as Dr. Pye Smith, and Professor Hitchcock of
the United States, that there was any show of argument displayed against
the theory of a partial deluge which would now be deemed worthy of
consideration. And these modern objections may be found ingeniously
arrayed by the late Dr. John Kitto, in his "Daily Bible Illustrations,"
published only six years ago (in 1850), and by the learned Dr. William
Hamilton of Mobile, in his "Friend of Moses," published in 1852. Both
these writers, however, virtually agree with their opponents in holding
that the strict meaning of the terms employed by Moses in describing the
deluge is to be determined on considerations apart from the mere
philological ones. After marshalling his objections to the theory of a
local flood, Dr. Kitto goes on to say, "We yield our judgment to what
appears to us the _force of these arguments_ as to the _meaning_ of
Scripture;" and we find Dr. Hamilton prefacing his objections as
follows:--"Were the mere universality of some of the terms employed in
the Mosaic narrative the _sole_ ground of objection to the hypothesis of
a _local_ inundation only in the days of Noah, that hypothesis might
perhaps be deemed admissible. But there are," he adds, "other and more
serious difficulties attending it." Let us, then, briefly examine these
supposed difficulties and objections; and as they have been better and
more amply stated by Dr. Kitto than by any other writer with whom I am
acquainted,--for Dr. Hamilton takes up rather the arguments in favor of
a universal, than the objections against a merely partial flood,--let us
take them as they occur in his writings, especially in the excellent
work now before me,--his "Daily Bible Illustrations." It will scarce be
suspected that such an accomplished writer, who did so much for
Biblical Illustration, and whose admirable Pictorial Bible formed, with
but four works more, what Chalmers used to term with peculiar emphasis
his "Biblical Library,"[27] would do injustice to any cause, or any line
of argument which he adopted, if it was in reality a good and sound one.

It may be well, however, not to test too rigidly the