Why, therefore, imagine, as many of our naturalists have done, that this water totally changed the surface of the globe even to a depth of two thousand feet? Why do they desire it to be the deluge which has brought the shells on the earth which we meet with at 7 or 800 feet depth in rocks and marble? Why say, that the hills and mountains were formed at that time? And how can we figure to ourselves, that it is possible for these waters to have brought masses and banks of shells 100 miles long? I see not how they can persist in this opinion, at least, without admitting a double miracle in the deluge; the first, for the augmentation of the waters; and the second, for the transportation of the shells; but as there is only the first which is related in the Bible, I do not see it necessary to make the second an article of our creed. On the other hand, if the waters of the deluge had retired all at once, they would have carried so great a quantity of mud and other impurities, that the Earth would not have been capable of culture till many ages after this inundation; as is known, by the deluge which happened in Greece, where the overflowed country was totally forsaken, and could not receive any cultivation for more than three centuries.[151:A] We ought also to look on the universal deluge as a supernatural means of which the Almighty made use for the chastisement of mankind, and not as an effect of a natural cause. The universal deluge is a miracle both in its cause and effects; we see clearly by the scripture that it was designed for the destruction of men and animals, and that it did not in any mode change the earth, since after the retreat of the waters, the mountains, and even the trees, were in their places, and the surface of the earth was proper to receive culture and produce vines and fruits. How could all the race of fish, which did not enter the ark, be preserved, if the earth had been dissolved in the water, or only if the waters had been sufficiently agitated to transport shells from India to Europe, &c.?