THE NOACHIAN FLOOD. 35 



till, by learning facts and weighing arguments, we had 

 become able to form an opinion no longer unscientific, 

 or, at the very least, to appreciate the difficulties in- 

 volved in the ancient belief. 



We are forced to take a controversy of this kind as it 

 stands; otherwise, there is a simple principle which 

 ought to make all controversy on the subject needless. 

 All authors ^endowed with common sense, let alone 

 divine inspiration, use language which their intended 

 readers may be expected to understand, and language 

 appropriate to the scope and design of their writings. 

 Unless, therefore, we suppose that the Old Testament 

 writers proposed to teach natural science to the Hebrew 

 nation, we ought to expect from them what we actually 

 find : as to natural phenomena, past and present, they 

 use the language not of far-advanced knowledge and 

 minute particular research, but simply the language 

 current in their own day and nation. 



But, setting aside the general principle, in the present 

 instance there is a second possibility of quashing the 

 controversy, if it can be shown or made probable that 

 the author, whose narrative is in question, never meant 

 to imply that which for thousands of years has been 

 held to be his meaning. 



The whole point at issue is the universality of the 

 Noachian Deluge, and the narrative has been thought 

 to be uncompromising in its declarations that all the 

 earth, to the very mountain-tops, was indeed enveloped 

 in water, and, excepting the handful rescued in the ark, 

 that all men and cattle and creeping things and fowls of 



D 2 



