So far the apologist of the future. Why not? _Cantabit vacuus._ FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 1: _Bampton Lectures_ (1859), on "The Historical Evidence of the Truth of the Scripture Records stated anew, with Special Reference to the Doubts and Discoveries of Modern Times," by the Rev. G. Rawlinson, M.A., pp. 5-6.] [Footnote 2: _The Worth of the Old Testament,_ a Sermon preached in St. Paul's Cathedral on the second Sunday in Advent, 8th Dec., 1889, by H. P. Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's. Second edition revised and with a new preface, 1890.] [Footnote 3: St. Luke xvii. 32.] [Footnote 4: St. Luke xvii. 27.] [Footnote 5: St. Matt. xii. 40.] [Footnote 6: _Bampton Lectures,_ 1859, pp. 50-51.] [Footnote 7: _Commentary on Genesis,_ by the Bishop of Ely, p. 77.] [Footnote 8: _Die Sintflut,_ 1876.] [Footnote 9: _Theologie und Naturwissenschaft,_ ii. 784-791 (1877).] [Footnote 10: It is very doubtful if this means the region of the Armenian Ararat. More probably it designates some part either of the Kurdish range or of its south-eastern continuation.] [Footnote 11: So Reclus (_Nouvelle Geographie Universelle,_ ix. 386), but I find the statement doubted by an authority of the first rank.] [Footnote 12: So far as I know, the narrative of the Creation is not now held to be true, in the sense in which I have defined historical truth, by any of the reconcilers. As for the attempts to stretch the Pentateuchal days into periods of thousands or millions of years, the verdict of the eminent Biblical scholar, Dr. Riehm (_Der biblische Schopfungsbericht,_ 1881, pp. 15, 16) on such pranks of "Auslegungskunst" should be final. Why do the reconcilers take Goethe's advice seriously?-- "Im Auslegen seyd frisch und munter! Legt ihr's nicht aus, so legt was unter."]