Throughchapterafterchapter，Voltaire，obeyingthesupposednecessitiesofhistheology，foughtdesperatelythegrowingresultsofthegeologicinvestigationsofhistime。[159]
[159]SeeVoltaire，DissertationsurlesChangementsarrivesdansnotreGlobe；alsoVoltaire，LesSingularitiesdelaNature，chap。
xii；alsoJevons，PrinciplesofScience，vol。ii，p。328。
ButfarmoreprejudicialtoChristianitywasthecontinuedeffortontheothersidetoshowthatthefossilswerecausedbytheDelugeofNoah。
Nosuppositionwastooviolenttosupportthistheory，whichwasconsideredvitaltotheBible。Bytakingthemerehusksandrindsofbiblicaltruthfortruthitself，bytakingsacredpoetryasprose，andbygivingaliteralinterpretationofit，thefollowersofBurnet，Whiston，andWoodwardbuiltupsystemswhichbeartorealgeologymuchthesamerelationthattheChristianTopographyofCosmasbearstorealgeography。Invainwereexhibitedtheabsolutegeological，zoological，astronomicalproofsthatnouniversaldeluge，ordelugecoveringanylargepartoftheearth，hadtakenplacewithinthelastsixthousandorsixtythousandyears；invaindidsoenlightenedachurchmanasBishopClaytondeclarethattheDelugecouldnothaveextendedbeyondthatdistrictwhereNoahlivedbeforetheFlood；invaindidothers，likeBishopCroftandBishopStillingfleet，andthenonconformistMatthewPoole，showthattheDelugemightnothavebeenandprobablywasnotuniversal；invainwasitshownthat，eveniftherehadbeenauniversaldeluge，thefossilswerenotproducedbyit：theonlyanswerswerethecitationofthetext。”Andallthehighmountainswhichwereunderthewholeheavenwerecovered。”and，toclinchthematter，WorthingtonandmenlikehiminsistedthatanyargumenttoshowthatfossilswerenotremainsofanimalsdrownedattheDelugeofNoahwas“infidelity。”InEngland，France，andGermany，beliefthatthefossilswereproducedbytheDelugeofNoahwaswidelyinsisteduponaspartofthatfaithessentialtosalvation。[160]
[160]Foracandidsummaryoftheproofsfromgeology，astronomy，andzoology，thattheNoachianDelugewasnotuniversallyorwidelyextended，seeMcClintockandStrong，CyclopediaofBiblicalTheologyandEcclesiasticalLiterature，articleDeluge。
Forgeneralhistory，seeLyell，D’Archiac，andVezian。Forspecialcasesshowingthebitternessoftheconflict，seetheRev。Mr。Davis’sLifeofRev。Dr。PyeSmith，passim。Foralateaccount，seeProf。HuxleyonTheLightsoftheChurchandtheLightofScience，intheNineteenthCenturyforJuly，1890。
Butthesteadyworkofsciencewenton：notalltheforceoftheChurch——noteventhesplendidengravingsinScheuchzer’sBible——couldstopit，andthefoundationsofthistheologicaltheorybegantocrumbleaway。Theprocesswas，indeed，slow；itrequiredahundredandtwentyyearsforthesearchersofGod’struth，asrevealedinNature——suchmenasHooke，Linnaeus，Whitehurst，Daubenton，Cuvier，andWilliamSmith——topushtheirworksunderthisfabricoferror，and，bystatementswhichcouldnotberesisted，toundermineit。Aswearriveatthebeginningofthenineteenthcentury，scienceisbecomingirresistibleinthisfield。Blumenbach，VonBuch，andSchlotheimledtheway，butmostimportantontheContinentwastheworkofCuvier。Intheearlyyearsofthepresentcenturyhisresearchesamongfossilsbegantothrownewlightintothewholesubjectofgeology。Hewas，indeed，veryconservative，andevenmorewaryanddiplomatic；seeming，likeVoltaire，tofeelthat“amongwolvesonemusthowlalittle。”Itwasatimeofreaction。
NapoleonhadmadepeacewiththeChurch，andtodisturbthatpeacewasakintotreason。BylargebutvagueconcessionsCuvierkeptthetheologianssatisfied，whileheunderminedtheirstrongestfortress。ThedangerwasinstinctivelyfeltbysomeofthechampionsoftheChurch，andtypicalamongthesewasChateaubriand，whoinhisbest-knownwork，oncesogreat，nowsolittle——theGeniusofChristianity——grappledwiththequestionsofcreationbyinsistinguponasortofgeneraldeception“inthebeginning。”underwhicheverythingwascreatedbyasuddenfiat，butwithappearancesofpre-existence。Hiswordsareasfollows：
“Itwaspartoftheperfectionandharmonyofthenaturewhichwasdisplayedbeforemen’seyesthatthedesertednestsoflastyear’sbirdsshouldbeseenonthetrees，andthattheseashoreshouldbecoveredwithshellswhichhadbeentheabodeoffish，andyettheworldwasquitenew，andnestsandshellshadneverbeeninhabited。”[161]ButtherealvictorywaswithBrongniart，who，about1820，gaveforthhisworkonfossilplants，andthusbuiltabarrieragainstwhichtheenemiesofscienceragedinvain。[162]
[161]GenieduChristianisme，chap。v，pp。1-14，citedbyReusch，vol。i，p。250。
[162]ForadmirablesketchesofBrongniartandotherpaleobotanists，seeWard，asabove。
Stillthestrugglewasnotended，and，afewyearslater，aforlornhopewasledinEnglandbyGranvillePenn。
Hisfundamentalthesiswasthat“ourglobehasundergoneonlytworevolutions，theCreationandtheDeluge，andbothbytheimmediatefiatoftheAlmighty“；heinsistedthattheCreationtookplaceinexactlysixdaysofordinarytime，eachmadeupof“theeveningandthemorning“；andheendedwithapieceofthatpeculiarpresumptionsofamiliartotheworld，bycallingonCuvierandallothergeologiststo“askfortheoldpathsandwalkthereinuntiltheyshallsimplifytheirsystemandreducetheirnumerousrevolutionstothetwoeventsorepochsonly——thesixdaysofCreationandtheDeluge。”[163]Thegeologistsshowednodispositiontoyieldtothisperemptorysummons；onthecontrary，thePresidentoftheBritishGeologicalSociety，andevensoeminentachurchmanandgeologistasDeanBuckland，soonacknowledgedthatfactsobligedthemtogiveupthetheorythatthefossilsofthecoalmeasuresweredepositedattheDelugeofNoah，andtodenythattheDelugewasuniversal。
[163]SeetheWorksofGranvillePenn，vol。ii，p。273。
ThedefectionofBucklandwasespeciallyfeltbytheorthodoxparty。Hisability，honesty，andloyaltytohisprofession，aswellashispositionasCanonofChristChurchandProfessorofGeologyatOxford，gavehimgreatauthority，whichheexertedtotheutmostinsoothinghisbrotherecclesiastics。InhisinaugurallecturehehadlabouredtoshowthatgeologyconfirmedtheaccountsofCreationandtheFloodasgiveninGenesis，andin1823，afterhiscaveexplorationshadrevealedoverwhelmingevidencesofthevastantiquityoftheearth，hehadstillclungtotheFloodtheoryinhisReliquiaeDiluvianae。
Thishadnot，indeed，fullysatisfiedtheanti-scientificparty，butasaruletheirattacksuponhimtooktheformnotsomuchofabuseasofhumorousdisparagement。AnepigrambyShuttleworth，afterwardBishopofChichester，inimitationofPope’sfamouslinesuponNewton，ranasfollows：
“SomedoubtswereonceexpressedabouttheFlood：
Bucklandarose，andallwasclearasmud。”
OnhisleavingOxfordforajourneytosouthernEurope，DeanGaisfordwasheardtoexclaim：“Well，BucklandisgonetoItaly；
so，thankGod，weshallhavenomoreofthisgeology！”
StilltherewassomecomfortaslongasBucklandheldtotheDelugetheory；but，onhissurrender，thecombatdeepened：
insteadofepigramsandcaricaturescamebitterattacks，andfromthepulpitandpresscameshowersofmissiles。TheworstofthesewerehurledatLyell。Aswehaveseen，hehadpublishedin1830hisPrinciplesofGeology。Nothingcouldhavebeenmorecautious。Itsimplygaveanaccountofthemaindiscoveriesuptothattime，drawingthenecessaryinferenceswithplainyetconvincinglogic，anditremainstothisdayoneofthoseworksinwhichtheAnglo-Saxonracemaymostjustlytakepride，——oneoftheland-marksintheadvanceofhumanthought。
ButitstendencywasinevitablyatvariancewiththeChaldeanandotherancientmythsandlegendsregardingtheCreationandDelugewhichtheHebrewshadreceivedfromtheoldercivilizationsamongtheirneighbours，andhadincorporatedintothesacredbookswhichtheytransmittedtothemodernworld；itwasthereforeextensively“refuted。”
Theologiansandmenofscienceinfluencedbytheminsistedthathisminimizingofgeologicalchanges，andhislayingstressonthegradualactionofnaturalcausesstillinforce，endangeredthesacredrecordofCreationandleftnoplaceformiraculousintervention；andwhenitwasfoundthathehadentirelycastasidetheircherishedideathatthegreatgeologicalchangesoftheearth’ssurfaceandthemultitudeoffossilremainswereduetotheDelugeofNoah，andhadshownthatafarlongertimewasdemandedforCreationthananywhichcouldpossiblybededucedfromtheOldTestamentgenealogiesandchronicles，orthodoxindignationburstforthviolently；eminentdignitariesoftheChurchattackedhimwithoutmercyandforatimehewasundersocialostracism。
Asthisavailedlittle，aneffortwasmadeonthescientificsidetocrushhimbeneaththeweightyauthorityofCuvier；butthefutilityofthiseffortwasevidentwhenitwasfoundthatthinkingmenwouldnolongerlistentoCuvierandpersistedinlisteningtoLyell。Thegreatorthodoxtext-book，Cuvier’sTheoryoftheEarth，becameatoncesodiscreditedintheestimationofmenofsciencethatnoneweditionofitwascalledfor，whileLyell’sworkspeedilyranthroughtwelveeditionsandremainedafirmbasisofmodernthought。[164]
[164]ForBucklandandthevariousformsofattackuponhim，seeGordon，LifeofBuckland，especiallypp。10，26，136。FortheattackonLyellandhisbook，seeHuxley，TheLightsoftheChurchandtheLightofScience。
AstypicalofhismoremoderateopponentswemaytakeFairholme，whoin1837publishedhisMosaicDeluge，andarguedthatnoearlyconvulsionsoftheearth，suchasthosesupposedbygeologists，couldhavetakenplace，becausetherecouldhavebeennodeluge“beforemoralguiltcouldpossiblyhavebeenincurred“——thatistosay，beforethecreationofmankind。IntouchingtermshebewailedthedefectionofthePresidentoftheGeologicalSocietyandDeanBuckland——protestingagainstgeologistswho“persistinclosingtheireyesuponthesolemndeclarationsoftheAlmighty“
Stillthegeologistscontinuedtoseektruth：thegermsplantedespeciallybyWilliamSmith，“theFatherofEnglishGeology“weredevelopedbyanoblesuccessionofinvestigators，andthevictorywassure。Meanwhilethosetheologianswhofeltthatdenunciationofscienceas“godless“couldaccomplishlittle，laboureduponschemesforreconcilinggeologywithGenesis。Someoftheseshowamazingingenuity，butaneminentreligiousauthority，goingoverthemwithgreatthoroughness，haswellcharacterizedthemas“daringandfanciful。”Suchattemptshavebeenvariouslyclassified，butthefactregardingthemallisthateachmixesupmoreorlessofsciencewithmoreorlessofScripture，andproducesaresultmoreorlessabsurd。Thoughafewmenhereandtherehavecontinuedtheseexercises，thecapitulationofthepartywhichsettheliteralaccountoftheDelugeofNoahagainstthefactsrevealedbygeologywasatlastclearlymade。[165]
[165]ForFairholme，seehisMosaicDeluge，London，1837，p。358。
Foraveryjustcharacterizationofvariousschemesof“reconciliation。”seeShields，TheFinalPhilosophy，p。340。
Oneofthefirstevidencesofthecompletenessofthissurrenderhasbeensowellrelatedbytheeminentphysiologist，Dr。W。B。
Carpenter，thatitmaybestbegiveninhisownwords：“Youarefamiliarwithabookofconsiderablevalue，Dr。W。Smith’sDictionaryoftheBible。Ihappenedtoknowtheinfluencesunderwhichthatdictionarywasframed。Theideaofthepublisherandoftheeditorwastogiveasmuchscholarshipandsuchresultsofmoderncriticismasshouldbecompatiblewithaveryjudiciousconservatism。Therewastobenoobjectiontogeology，buttheuniversalityoftheDelugewastobestrictlymaintained。TheeditorcommittedthearticleDelugetoamanofveryconsiderableability，butwhenthearticlecametohimhefoundthatitwassoexcessivelyhereticalthathecouldnotventuretoputitin。Therewasnottimeforasecondarticleunderthathead，andifyoulookinthatdictionaryyouwillfindunderthewordDelugeareferencetoFlood。BeforeFloodcame，asecondarticlehadbeencommissionedfromasourcethatwasbelievedsafelyconservative；butwhenthearticlecameinitwasfoundtobeworsethanthefirst。Athirdarticlewasthencommissioned，andcarewastakentosecureits`safety。’IfyoulookforthewordFloodinthedictionary，youwillfindareferencetoNoah。UnderthatnameyouwillfindanarticlewrittenbyadistinguishedprofessorofCambridge，ofwhichI