2. The geological objections to a universal deluge tre also formidable. Many years have not elapsed since it was believed that the revelations of geology tended in a very marked manner to confirm the com- nionly received view of the deluge. Over the greater P&Tt of Great Britain and Ireland, and throughout Central and Northern Europe as well as North Amer- lea, there exists immediately under the vegetable soil ft deposit of clay, sand, or gravel, often very tumultn- ♦^wly ananged. This deposit, in the infancy of geo- logical science, was set down as the result of some
AAA
great rush of watmv ; and, as it was plainly one of the most recent formations of the globe, it came to be re- garded as beyond question the result of that old deluge by which the human race had been destroyed. It re- ceived, accordingly, the name dilwnum ; and, from its very general occurrence in both hemispheres, it was held to be a confirmation of the Bible narrative of the flood that covered " all the high hills that were under the whole heaven." But the identification proved too hasty. A more careful examination of the diluvium showed that it belonged to noany different periods, and had, to a considerable extent, resulted fVom local causes, acting over limited areas. It was ascertained, however, that one kind of diluvium, having a wide dif- fusion over the northern parts of Europe and America, must have been produced by one great cause acting in the same geological period. The agency which gave rise to this ** drift" was nevertheless shown to be not a rush of water, but ice coming fVom the north, either in the form of a glacier or as icebergs, and bearing with it enormous quantities of sand, mud, and stones. Thus the last hope of sustaining the doctrine of a uni- versal deluge by an appeal to geological facts fell to the ground. Not only does geology afford no evi- dence in favor of such a doctrine, but it tends to sup- port the opposite view. The notion of a simultaneous and universal desolation of the globe finds no counte- nance among those stony records in which the prime- val history of our planet is graven as with a p#n of iron in the rock forever. There are, indeed, many gaps in the chronicle, many passages that have been blotted out in whole or in part, and some pages that seem nev- er to have been inscribed among rocks at all, but these are only local. What is wanting in one place is often made up in another ; and, though even at the best the record is full of imperfections, the geologist can con- fidently affirm that its whole tenor goes to disprove any universal catastrophe, and to show that the extinction of successive races of plants and animals has been im- perceptibly effected during immensely protracted peri- ods of time.
Another geological argument has often been ad- duced as bearing strongly against a general deluge. In Auvergne, and other districts of Central France, there occurs a series of volcanoes which have not been in action within the historical period. From the asso- ciation of the remains of long extinct animals among the products of these volcanoes, it has been inferred that the era of eruption must be assigned to a time long anterior to the appearance of man. Tet these volcanic cones are in many instil nces as perfect as when they were first thrown up. Travellers who have climbed their sides and descended into their craters bear testimony to the fact that they consist of dust and cinders still so loosely aggregated that the travel- ler sometimes sinks over the ankle in volcanic debris. Such light material has assuredly been exposed to the action of no large body of water, which would have swept it at once away, like Graham's Inland, which arose in the Mediterranean, July, 1831, to a height of 200 feet and a circumference of three miles, but in a few months was washed down to a mere shoal (BibU- otheca Sacra, July, 1867, p. 465). Hence, since these volcanoes belong to a period earlier than that of man, the deluge cannot have extended over Central France.
Formerly, the existence of shells and corals at the top of high nK>untains was taken to be no less conclu- sive evidence the other way. They were constantly appealed to as a proof of the literal truth of the Script- ure narrative. So troublesome and inconvenient a proof did it seem to Voltaire, that he attempted to ac- count for the existence of foesil shells by arguing that either they were those of fresh-water lakes and rivers evaporated during dry seasons, or of land-snails devel- oped in unusual abundance during wet ones ; or that they were sheila that had been dropped from the hats of pilgrims on their way from the Holy Land to their
DELUGE
738
DELUGE
own hornet ; or, in the case of the ammonitet, that they were petrified reptiles. It speaks ill for the state of science that such arguments could be advanced, on the one side for, and on the other against, the univer- sality of the Deluge. This is the more extraordinary — and the fact shows how very slowly, where preju- dices stand in the way, the soundest reasoning will be listened to — when we remember that so early as the year 1517 an Italian named Fracastoro had demonstra- ted the nntenableness of the vulgar belief which asso- ciated these fossil remains with the Mosaic Deluge. **That inundation," he observed, "was too transient; it consisted principally of fluviatile waters ; and, if it had transported shells to great distances, it must have strewed them over the surface, not buried them at vast depths in the interior of mountains. . . . But the dear and philosophical views of Fracastoro were disregard- ed, and the talent and argumentative powers of the . learned were doomed for three centuries to be wasted in the discussion of these two simple and preliminary questions : first, whether fossil remains had ever be- longed to living creatures ; and, secondly, whether, if this be admitted, all the phenomena could not be ex- plained by the deluge of Noah" (Lyell, Principles of Geology^ p. 20, 9th edit.). Even within the last thir- ty years geologists like Cuvier and Bnckland {lU' Uquia Dikivianc^ Lond. 1828, 4to) have thought that the superficial deposits might be referred to the pe- riod of the Noachian Flood. Subsequent investiga- tion, however, showed that if the received chronolo- gy were even approximately correct, this was out of the question, as tiiese deposits must liave taken place thousands of years before the time of Noah, and, in- deed, before the creation of man. Hence the geologic diluvium is to be carefully distinguished from the his- toric. Although, singularly enough, the latest discov- eries give some support to the opinion that man may have been in existence during the formation of the drift, yet even then that formation could not have re- sulted from a mere temporary submersion like that of the Mosaic Deluge, but must have been the effect of causes in operation for ages. So far, then, it is clear, there is no evidence now on the earth*s sur£ace in ik- ▼or of a universal deluge. See Geoloot.