172 
these various controverted points. And yet let us see how Dr. Colenso has 
satisfied himself, and endeavours to satisfy others, upon a question that, even 
having regard to geological evidence alone, is full of doubt and difficulty. 
He says : — 
“ My own knowledge of some branches of science — of geology in particular 
— had been much increased since I left England ; and as I now know for 
certain , on geological grounds , a fact of which I had only misgivings before, 
viz., that a universal deluge, such as the Bible manifestly speaks of ', could not 
possibly have taken place in the way described in the Book of Genesis. I 
refer especially to the circumstance, well known to all geologists (see Lyell’s 
4 Elementary Geology,’ pp. 197, 198), that volcanic hiils exist of immense 
extent in Auvergne and Languedoc, which must have been formed ages before 
the Noachian deluge , and which are covered with light and loose substances, 
pumice-stone, &c., that must have been swept away by a flood, but do not 
exhibit the slightest sign of having ever been so disturbed. Of course (he 
adds), I am well aw r are that some have attempted to show that Noah’s deluge 
was only a partial one ; but such attempts have ever seemed to me to be 
made in the very teeth of the Scripture statements, which are as plain and 
explicit as words can possibly be.” 
I have drawn attention to the extremely positive character of Dr. Colenso’s 
opinions and assertions, as regards his assumed knowledge of geological 
“ facts,” by putting some of his sentences in italics. He appears totally 
unaware of the historic evidence bearing upon the whole question ; and, as he 
throws over the Pentateuch, he probably shares with Sir Charles Lyell the 
opinion that “ true history and chronology are the creation, as it were, of 
yesterday. Thus the first Olympiad is generally regarded as the earliest date 
on which we can rely, in the past annals of mankind, — only 772 years before 
the Christian era.” ( Antiq . of Man, p. -380.) 
Those who read this note may feel inclined to doubt whether “ true his- 
tory” can be confidently reckoned upon even to-day ! It is not, every one 
must be convinced, always very well treated even when within our reach. 
I hesitate to express in my own words all I feel as regards what is either 
the ignorance or obliviousness that has been exhibited with reference to the 
historic evidences of the date of the volcanic eruptions in Auvergne. The 
state of the case is put briefly thus in Archdeacon Pratt’s Scripture and 
Science not at Variance* 
II Some years ago, a geological lecturer of no ordinary note [Dr. DaubenvJ 
asserted that the volcanoes of Auvergne, in Central France, have not been In 
activity for many ages — certainly not since the days of Julius Caesar, who 
pitched his camp there in perfect safety ; and he took the intervening period 
of nearly 2000 years as the first step for measuring the antiquity of the 
deposits in those parts. Whereas, ten or tw T elv r e years subsequently \i. e. sub- 
sequent to the Lecturer’s assertion] an old Gaulish history w r as re-edited, 
from which it appears that during three years, long after Julius Caesar, viz. 
in a.d. 458-460, the district was convulsed with violent and continued erup- 
tions, and streams of lava carried destruction before them. (Quar. Rev., Oct, 
1844.)” 
* Lond., Hatchard & Co., 5th eel., 1864. (p. 160.) 
