Spirit of the age. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1849-1865, 1856-04-23
ORIGINAL PAPERS.
For the Spirit of the Age.
Newton VS.. Moses.

your correspondent Newton in the Age
Of 2d April" Tue Noachism Delugc not
universal 'may occasion surprise in the
minds of those who have never examined
any Of the records Of science, but will not
we feel certain, surprise those who have ex.
amiued tue records ofiuiiIelity. His argu-
ments in support of the positiUe theory,
e"irpsees- "rsa Prdsestiaons of sincere re- +
garl aud profound reverence for the Word
or GOd. ffvwftt tt>Le---..--.- :, o.1
saying to the uninitiated, that his essay |
from caption to conclusion. is but an eeho,
Of what hrs been again and again asserted,
to discredit the authenticity of the Bible !
and TO invalidate the Mosaic account Of the
dcluge.
"The Bible" says Newton" "is Of
supreme authority, aud whatevever it posi-
lively asserts must be unhcsitatingly and
cordially assentcd to-" So sag we aud
JelicviRg as much, We shall take the pre-
caution, to examine its testimony on the
subject We think that fair and legiti-
maze Interpretation of the following passa-
ges from the Book Of Genesis, will con.
vince any reasonable man, that they plainly
teach, that the deluge was universal:
"And the Lord said will destroy man
whom have created from the face Of the
earth both man and beast, and the creep
ing things aud tile fowls of the air. Behold
i, even do bring food Of waters upon
the earth to destroy all flesh wherein is the
breath Of life from under heaven; and eve
ry thing that is iu the earth shall die
Aud all flesh died that moved upon the
ear,h, both Of fowl aud of cattle, and of
beast, aud Of every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth, aud every man;
all in whose nostrils was the breath Of life,
of all that was in the dry land died"
On these texts, we offer the following
observations, both by way of exposition,
aud reply to the structures of "Newton"
on the narrative which Moses gives.
/. The rule of Interpretation which
4" Newton" has applied to modify and re-
strict the meaning of call, "every,"
whole" g., in the above quotations, is
not ia this case admissible for the reason
that when that figure of speech is employed
in which the whole is put for part it
must be oboioUs that only part is intended
Bor example: Tertullus in his accusation
against Paul, says: " We have found this
man pestilent fellow, and mover of Sc.
diton among the Jews throughout the
c0rid." Now, it is evident that by the
"word' he means the Roman Empire.
The jews were subject to the Roman En-.
perors, aud the point which Tcrtullus de-
sired to make out iu his speech was, tha
Paul was mover" of sedltion among tht
subjects Of Rome. Other examples ma,
bo found in l John, 5, o; Romans l, 8
Peter, 3, 6.
2. To prove that the word every is no
ai,cays used in limited sense (Which W
admu) Newton quotes a passage fror
the Book Of Exolns, " And the hail smot
every herb of the feld;' and adds, Gin
mcdlaicly we are told that the beasts sha
eat the residue of that which remaineth I
you from the hail Now if the word ev,
ry were used in an unlimited sense ther
could have been no residue, and to spea
Of such would have been perfectly absurd.
Why not residue had the hail eaten {
otherwise consumed "every herb Of ii
field Z" No. But the text says the ha
smote every herb of the field" Where
the absurdity then in saying that the /
Gusts ate what the hail hal smitten? Bl
allowing that the hail did literally cOnSun
all which it >mote, aud that it sm1te ever
herb Of he feid," the sacred text is sti
consistent lu saying the residue shall
eaten by locusts. Ii Newton hal the Il
BILE before him when he quoted, he mu
show cause why he SHOULD not be convict,
Of handling the Word of God deceitfuliy
Here arc the texts to which he allude!
And the hail smote throughout all Il
laul Of Egypt, all that was in the 6el
both man aud beast; aud the hail smo
every herb Of the field, and broke e,e
pit Of the field. Only in the land of G
whore the children of Israel wei
groon up 1t is surprising "NewtoI
did not see the words which we have he
italicsed, and the apology which chari
would suggest is, that he quoted from
very imperfect memory So much
Newton, attempt to prove that " every
call, &c, ia Noses account of the deu
do not mean al, epery, &,. We repea
when terms which literally imply univt
sllity are employed in restricted sens
1t must be oJgious hat they are so used.
g. Newton argues upon the assumpti
that the sen ence pronounced against t
antedeluviIus was without reservation
exception anl therefore the fact of Noa
his family AMI certain animals being pI
serve !, is satisfactory proof that the exprt
sion "all flesh" was used fguratiSely.
Hear him: 4God said the eud of
flesh is come before me-" If the word
in the passage implied absolute universal
ty, then how could Noah and those wi
him have been saved" Now the fact
that in the first communication of GoC
purpose to destroy " all flesh" and in Gu
subsequent declaration of that purpose,
special and positive reservation is made.
For we read, /" But Noah found grace
the eyes Of the Lord. But with thee W
| establish my covenant; and thou sh'
come into the ark, thou and thy sons
thy wife, aul thy sons wives with thee
Noah only romainad alive, aud they Il
we're with him 10 the ark
" Newton" argues against the uniVers