those which
follow:--

What is questioned is that our Lord's words foreclose certain
critical positions as to the character of Old Testament
literature. For example, does His use of Jonah's resurrection as
a _type_ of His own, depend in any real degree upon whether
it is historical fact or allegory?... Once more, our Lord uses
the time before the Flood, to illustrate the carelessness of men
before His own coming.... In referring to the Flood He
certainly suggests that He is treating it as typical, for He
introduces circumstances--"eating and drinking, marrying and
giving in marriage "--which have no counterpart in the original
narrative. (pp. 358-9).

While insisting on the flow of inspiration through the whole of the Old
Testament, the essayist does not admit its universality. Here, also, the
new apologetic demands a partial flood:

But does the inspiration of the recorder guarantee the exact
historical truth of what he records? And, in matter of fact, can
the record with due regard to legitimate historical criticism,
be pronounced true? Now, to the latter of these two questions
(and they are quite distinct questions) we may reply that there
is nothing to prevent our believing, as our faith strongly
disposes us to believe, that the record from Abraham downward
is, in substance, in the strict sense historical (p. 351).

It would appear, therefore, that there is nothing to prevent our
believing that the record, from Abraham upward, consists of stories in
the strict sense unhistorical, and that the pre-Abrahamic narratives are
mere moral and religious "types" and parables.

I confess I soon lose my way when I try to follow those who walk
delicately among "types" and allegories. A certain passion for clearness
forces me to ask, bluntly, whether the writer means to say that Jesus
did not believe the stories in question, or that he did? When Jesus
spoke, as of a matter of fact, that "the Flood came and destroyed them
all," did he believe that the Deluge really took place, or not? It seems
to me that, as the narrative mentions Noah's wife, and his sons'
wives, there is good scriptural warranty for the statement that the
antediluvians married and were given in marriage; and I should have
thought that their eating and drinking might be assumed by the firmest
believer in the literal truth of the story. Moreover, I venture to ask
what sort of value, as an illustrati