The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science | Page 7

that of the origin
of the various races and nations of men, with all their varieties of
language and physical conformation. Whether the earth moves round
the sun or the contrary; whether the bodily and mental diseases of men
and animals are caused by evil spirits or not; whether there is such an
agency as witchcraft or not--all these are purely scientific questions;
and to all of them the Canonical Scriptures profess to give true answers.
And though nothing is more common than the assumption that these
books come into conflict only with the speculative part of modern
physical science, no assumption can have less foundation.
The antagonism between natural knowledge and the Pentateuch would
be as great if the speculations of our time had never been heard of. It
arises out of contradiction upon matters of fact. The books of
ecclesiastical authority declare that certain events happened in a certain
fashion; the books of scientific authority say they did not. As it seems
that this unquestionable truth has not yet penetrated among many of
those who speak and write on these subjects, it may be useful to give a
full illustration of it. And for that purpose I propose to deal, at some
length, with the narrative of the Noachian Deluge given in Genesis.
The Bampton lecturer in 1859, and the Canon of St. Paul's in 1890, are
in full agreement that this history is true, in the sense in which I have
defined historical truth. The former is of opinion that the account
attributed to Berosus records a tradition--
not drawn from the Hebrew record, much less the foundation
of that record; yet coinciding with it in the most remarkable way. The
Babylonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances, as the
monstrous size of the vessel and the translation of Xisuthros; but
otherwise it is the Hebrew history down to its minutiae. (p. 64).

Moreover, correcting Niebuhr, the Bampton lecturer points out that the
narrative of Berosus implies the universality of the Flood.
It is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing above
the tops of the loftiest mountains in Armenia--a height which must

have been seen to involve the submersion of all the countries with
which the Babylonians were acquainted (p. 66).
I may remark, in passing, that many people think the size of Noah's ark
"monstrous," considering the probable state of the art of shipbuilding
only 1600 years after the origin of man; while others are so
unreasonable as to inquire why the translation of Enoch is less an
"extravagance" than that of Xisuthros. It is more important, however, to
note that the Universality of the Deluge is recognised, not merely as a
part of the story, but as a necessary consequence of some of its details.
The latest exponent of Anglican orthodoxy, as we have seen, insists
upon the accuracy of the Pentateuchal history of the Flood in a still
more forcible manner. It is cited as one of those very narratives to
which the authority of the Founder of Christianity is pledged, and upon
the accuracy of which "the trustworthiness of our Lord Jesus Christ" is
staked, just as others have staked it upon the truth of the histories of
demoniac possession in the Gospels.
Now, when those who put their trust in scientific methods of
ascertaining the truth in the province of natural history find themselves
confronted and opposed, on their own ground, by ecclesiastical
pretensions to better knowledge, it is, undoubtedly, most desirable for
them to make sure that their conclusions, whatever they may be, are
well founded. And, if they put aside the unauthorised interference with
their business and relegate the Pentateuchal history to the region of
pure fiction, they are bound to assure themselves that they do so
because the plainest teachings of Nature (apart from all doubtful
speculations) are irreconcilable with the assertions which they reject.
At the present time, it is difficult to persuade serious scientific inquirers
to occupy themselves, in any way, with the Noachian Deluge. They
look at you with a smile and a shrug, and say they have more important
matters to attend to than mere antiquarianism. But it was not so in my
youth. At that time, geologists and biologists could hardly follow to the
end any path of inquiry without finding the way blocked by Noah and
his ark, or by the first chapter of Genesis; and it was a serious matter, in
this country at any rate, for a man to be suspected of doubting the
literal truth of the Diluvial or any other Pentateuchal history. The
fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the Geological Club (in 1824)
was, if I remember rightly, the last occasion on which the late Sir

Charles Lyell spoke to